iiili  iiiijiiiijl 


!!!    li    i    ! 


I  iilillil  i  I 


iiiii!i!!iiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiMniuijHitniiiuiiiui!iliiiiiMiiiii!!iifiiii!ji!iiiiii!ii(iiiniir 
'i'"""""""""''Hinuiiiiiii!(mimi(iii(!i  ii'liiiiiiiiiiHHiiiitfrmJiiiifiuiiitiiiimiiiiiiiiiiininHiiijii- 

JIIMi!!lini!ilinillil!!iiiliiinniiiniininHii  iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiMMiMMiii.. I,.....,.. :..h....:. 


liiii'i  iilllli  11!  I  i 


SfC-NRLF 


HHIilillli 


^"*»ffl"uiiiniii| 


^    ^    Oflfl    7c^3 


f^H^' 


COIUMBIA; 

1893  I 


ijNlVERSlly 

£  Press 


K^SSS^j 


ii  p  j  i,         11   ,    M  r    '  ill  '  '  j 

Pll'^        II     Ml  1  i  1 

I  ili*'^   M         !      n  s     .iiiiijiiij      !  i    I    iii       Mi 

i  lull   i   Ifiiilil iiiiiiniiiiii:iii iiii.,!^ ,..  ■   ■        ••'•> 


iitll!illti|l!ii!(!ii!iillilil!lll||(l|lil|jj|j|i||!i!ii|ii|iJ!lilll!il!n  nii!)|il!itll||||jlillillli 

r;i!iiiiniiiiiii!'iiiitiiiiiiiiii.'!itniiitii!Mii!iijii(!(inii!iiii!;ii  lUKiKiUiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu 


!llUi!iJi;ii!H!tiiHIMU!(lliil(i 


ii  i I i  i I i  1 1 II i 1 n 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I  r .  1 1 1 ; > 1 1 1 1 : 


^ 


LIBRARY 


OF   THE 


University  of  California. 


Class 


*M» 


Columbia  Sant&ersitg 

STUDIES  IN  ROMANCE  PHILOLOGY  AND 

LITERATUBE 


THE  ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT 


'T)^^^C^^ 


THE 


ANGLO -NORMAN  DIALECT 


A  MANUAL  OF  ITS 
PHONOLOGY  AND  MORPHOLOGY 


WITH  ILLUSTRATIVE  SPECIMENS  OF  THE  LITERATURE 


BY 


LOUIS  EMIL  MENGER,  Ph.D. 

LATE  PEOFESSOa  OF  ROMANCE  PHILOLOGY  IN  BRYN  MA  WE  COLLEGE 


OF  THE 


THE   COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY,  Agents 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 

1904 


All  rights  reserved 


COPYEIGHT,   1904, 

bt  the  macmillan  company. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  July,  1904. 


Nortoooti  i^tcBB 

J.  S.  Gushing  &  (.'o.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co, 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

In  view  of  the  circumstances  attending  the  appear- 
ance of  this  work,  it  has  been  thought  appropriate  to 
give  it  in  some  degree  the  form  of  a  memorial  volume. 
One  of  the  author's  close  friends  and  associates  has 
been  asked  to  prepare  a  brief  biographical  notice,  and 
a  likeness  of  Dr.  Monger,  introduced  as  a  frontispiece, 
will  enhance  the  interest  of  the  book  to  his  many 
friends.  A  large  part  of  the  work  had  received  the 
benefit  of  the  author's  revision  in  the  proofs;  but  it 
remained  for  the  editor  a  very  special  duty  of  love  and 
friendship  to  exercise  the  patient  vigilance  requisite 
to  seeing  accurately  through  the  final  stages  of  the 
press  a  work  so  bristling  with  technicalities  and  minute 
details.  In  particular  it  devolved  upon  the  editor  to 
seek  out,  insert,  and  verify  the  array  of  cross-references 
called  for  in  blank,  but  not  indicated  in  the  main  in  the 
author's  manuscript  nor  in  the  early  proofs.  Owing 
to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  presentation,  it  was  not 
found  to  be  feasible  or  desirable  to  provide  an  index 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  but  it  is  thought 
that  the  detailed  analytical  table  of  contents  will  serve 
every  necessary  purpose.  It  was  not  a  part  of  Pro- 
fessor Monger's  plan  to  supply  a  vocabulary  and  notes 
to  the  illustrative  extracts.  The  exposition  of  these 
passages,  so  far  as  called  for,  was  intended  to  be  given 
by  the  professor  in  charge  of  the  course  of  study. 

V 


164116 


vi  PREFATORY   NOTE 

In  the  belief  that  the  amount  of  highly  specialized 
and  skilful  labor  bestowed  by  Dr.  Menger  on  the  task 
of  his  predilection  will  be  found  abundantly  justified 
by  the  degree  of  its  usefulness  to  all  students  of  Anglo- 
Norman,  —  even  to  those  most  thoroughly  versed  in 
this  broadly  important  field,  —  the  book  is  confidently 
offered  as  the  partially  fulfilled  promise  of  an  under- 
taking and  of  a  career  prematurely  cut  off  in  the  fresh- 
ness of  youthful  vigor  and  fruition. 

H.  A.  TODD. 


"V 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


LOUIS   EMIL    MENGER. 
June  21»,  1871  — August  4,  1903. 


IN   MEMORIAM 

A  SAD  accident  has  cut  off  the  author  of  the  present 
work  from  activity  and  effort  before  he  could  see  the 
fruit  of  his  years  of  earnest  study.  Since  1897  he  had 
been  collecting  and  digesting  the  bibliography  of  the 
Old  French  dialects,  and  during  the  winter  of  1902  he 
decided  to  publish  a  section  of  the  work  he  had  in 
mind,  that  he  might  see  whether  the  plan  of  the 
series  met  with  approval,  and  might  profit  in  the  later 
parts  by  the  criticisms  of  the  first  volume.  This  is  no 
longer  possible  ;  but  could  the  author  have  foreseen  the 
untimely  ending  of  his  life,  he  would  no  doubt  have 
asked  that  the  book  still  be  judged  with  the  calm, 
scientific  spirit  that  knows  and  seeks  nothing  but 
truth ;  and  its  appearing  as  a  memorial  volume  implies 
in  no  wise  a  disposition  to  alter  in  this  regard  what 
would  have  been  his  wish. 

The  material  for  subsequent  volumes  in  the  Manual 
of  Old  French  Dialects,  projected  by  Dr.  Menger,  is 
limited  to  card  references,  and  unfortunately  is  not  in 
a  form  sufficiently  advanced  to  be  utilized  for  publica- 
tion. An  indication  of  the  scope  which  might  have 
been  given  to  it  is  furnished  by  an  article  which 
appeared  in  Modern  Language  Notes^  vol.  XVIII, 
pp.  106-111. 

vii 


Viii  IN  MEMORIAM 

Louis  Emil  Menger  was  born  June  29,  1871,  at 
Clinton,  Mississippi.  After  graduating  from  Missis- 
sippi College,  and  teaching  two  years  at  Vicksburg,  he 
entered  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  In  the  third 
year  of  his  stay  he  was  Fellow  in  Romance  Languages, 
and  in  June,  1893,  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Philosophy.  For  a  year  he  was  Instructor,  and  for 
three  years  Associate  at  the  Johns  Hopkins ;  in  1897 
he  was  appointed  Associate  Professor  at  Bryn  Mawr 
College,  and  three  years  later  was  made  Professor  of 
Romance  Philology  and  Italian.  In  December,  1900, 
he  was  married  to  Miss  Elizabeth  Buckley.  During 
the  summer  of  1903  he  travelled  with  his  wife  in  Italy, 
and  on  August  4  was  drowned  while  bathing  in  the 
Lago  Maggiore  at  Ghiffa.  A  fuller  sketch  of  his  life 
with  a  list  of  the  monographs  and  reviews  he  had  pub- 
lished is  given  by  his  friend  and  colleague,  Professor 
F.  De  Haan,  in  Modern  Language  Notes^  vol.  XVIII, 
pp.  225-226. 

Dr.  Menger's  straightforward,  manly  character  and 
his  kindly  disposition  are  familiar  to  all  who  were 
associated  with  him.  He  was  an  able  teacher  and  a 
zealous  investigator,  but  that  which  gave  the  greatest 
promise  of  a  life  of  usefulness  and  success  was  the 
steadiness  of  development  in  his  intelligence  and  knowl- 
edge. Thus  Part  I  of  the  3Ianual  of  Old  French 
Dialects  is  not  a  measure  of  the  best  he  could  have 
done,  but  an  indication  of  the  far  greater  attainment 
w^iich  might  have  been  reached  had  not  his  life  come 
to  a  sudden  end  just  as  he  was  approaching  the  period 
of  full  maturity  and  power. 

E.  C.  A. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Prefatory  Note v 

Frontispiece facing  vii 

In  Memoriam vii 

Introduction ^        .        .        .         .  xvii 

THE  ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT 

I.     General  Considerations 1 

II.     Texts 6 

Philippe  de  Thalin 8 

Cumpoz 9 

Bestiaire 9 

Alexis 10 

Laws  of  William  the  Conqueror       ....  11 

Oxford  Psalter 12 

Cambridge  Psalter 13 

Arundel  Psalter 14 

Quatre  Livres  des  Rois 15 

Roland 16 

Brandan 17 

Gaimar 18 

Adgar 19 

Fantosme 20 

Angler 21 

Chardri 22 

Guillaume  de  Berneville 23 

Modwenne 24 

St.  Thomas 24 

Adam 25 

Bevis  of  Hampton    .         .        .        .         .        .        .26 

Amadas  and  Ydoine         ......  26 

Chevalier,  Dame  et  Clerc 27 

ix 


X 

CONTENTS 

PAGE 

St.  Auban         .... 

.       27 

Sardenai   .... 

28 

Aspremont 

29 

Madeleine         .... 

30 

Fabliau  du  H^ron     . 

30 

Le  Donnei  des  Amants     . 

31 

P61erinage  de  Cliarlemague 

31 

Miscellaneous  Poems 

.      32 

Bible  Translation 

.      33 

Apocalypse 

33 

St.  Paul    .... 

34 

( 

Bozon       ..... 

.      36 

Tabulation  of  Texts 

.      36 

III. 

Phonology  and  Morphology 

.      37 

PHONOLOGY      

38-109 

Latin  A 

38-50 

1. 

Free  A  >  E. 

1.    Quality  of  the  e  <  a 

.       38 

2.    Orthographic  variants  of  e  <  a 

39-43 

le,  39-40  ;  ei,  40  ;  oi,  41 ;  ee, 

41- 

-42  ;  ae  or  oe, 

42  ;  ff,  42  ;  i,  42-43 ;  ai,  43 ; 

eo, 

43. 

2. 

A  before  a  palatal 

• 

43  46 

1.    EI  and  E        .        .         .         . 

• 

43-45 

2.    Orthographic  variants  of  ai,  ei, 

E 

45  46 

ee,  45  ;   «,  45  ;    ae,  45 ;    o^■, 

45- 

-46;    aeU   46; 

ea,  46. 

3. 

A  before  L  mouill^e 

• 

46 

4. 

A  before  a  nasal    .... 

• 

46-48 

1.    Free  position 

, 

46  47 

ain  and  ein,  46 ;   ain  and  ame,  47 ;   en,  47 ; 


5. 
6. 


an,  47. 
2.    Checked  position 

aun,  47  ;  ain,  48. 

A  before  L  or  R 

A  pretonic 

1.  Loss  of  A  in  hiatus        .... 

2.  A  replaced  by  other  letters    . 

e  for  «,  49 ;  ai  for  «,  50  ;  o,  au  for  «,  50 

3.  Pretonic  a  +  palatal      .... 

4.  Pretonic  a  +  nasal        .... 


47-48 

48-49 

49-50 

.       49 

49-50 

.       50 
.       50 


CONTENTS 


XI 


Latin  E  . 
7.    Free  E 


1.    EI,  AI,  oi 


£ 


8. 

9. 
10. 


PAGE 

50-65 

50-53 

••....  50—51 
52 

3.  Orthographic  variants  of  e,  ei,  oi         .        .         52-53 
Of  e  (ee,  ie,  i,  oe),  52;   ei,  oi  (eai,  aei,  ui), 
52-53. 

Checked  E  . 
1.   Orthographic  variants  (ee,  ei,  eo) 

E  before  L  mouill^e    . 


11. 

Latin 
12. 


E  before  a  nasal 

1.  Free  position 

ain,  ein,  en,  53 

2.  Checked  position 
E  before  L  or  R 

•  * 

E  .         .         .         .         . 
Free  E        .        .        . 


variants 


(oe^■,  eie, 


13. 
14. 
15. 


16. 


17. 


1.  IE  and  E      .        .        . 

2.  Quality  of  e  <  ie 

3.  Nature  of  the  diphthong 

4.  Orthographic  variants  of  ie  (e) 

ee,  57  ;  ei,  57  ;  eie,  57 ;  i,  57. 

Checked  E 57 

E  before  a  palatal 57-58 

E  before  a  nasal 58 

1.  Free  position 58 

Orthographic  variants  (ee,  ei,  i,  eie,  iei),  58. 

2.  Checked  position 58 

Variants  (ei,  eie},  58. 

E  (and  E  )  before  L 58-59 

1.   Variants 59_60 

eus,  us,  59 ;  als,  aus,  59 ;  eols,  eous,  ols,  ous, 

59-60  ;  oels,  ouls,  euls,  60. 
Pretonic  E  (close  or  open) 60 

1.  Fall  of  pretonic  e 60-61 

Before  a  vowel,  60 ;  before  a  consonant,  61. 

2.  Parasitic  pretonic  e 61-62 

3.  Pretonic  e  before  a  nasal 62 

4.  Variants  of  pretonic  e         .         .         .        .  62-63 

Phonetic   (a,  i,  0,  u),  62-63;   orthographic, 
(eo,  ae,  oe),  63. 


i),  54 


.      53 

.  53 
.  53 
53-54 
53-54 

.       54 

.       54 

55-65 

55-57 

55-56 

.      56 

.      56 

.      57 


Xll 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

18. 

Post-tonic  E 63 

1.    Fall  of  post-tonic  e 

63-65 

After  vowels,  63-64  ;  after  consonants,  64. 

2.    Parasitic  post-tonic  e 

64-65 

3.   Orthographic  variants  (i,  u,  a,  oe,  ae) 

.       65 

Latin ' 

[ 

65-69 

19. 

I,  Tonic 

.       65 

20. 

I,  Atonic 

.      65 

Latin  0 

.       66 

21. 

Tonic  0 

66-68 

1.    u  and  o 

.       66 

u  for  0,  66  ;  u  for  o  rhyming  with  w<  u,  66-67. 

2.    ou        ........ 

67-68 

3.    EU         .......          • 

.       68 

4.    Orthographic  variant  of  u   . 

.       68 

22. 

0  before  a  palatal 

.       68 

1.  oi  and  o 

.      68 

2.    ui  and  u 

.       68 

23. 

0  before  a  nasal 

.       69 

1.    ON  and  UN    .....        . 

.      69 

0  and  11,  69 ;  u  «  o  +  nasal)  rhyming  with 

?^  <  ii  -1-  nasal,  69. 

2.    GUN 69 

Latin  0 

.       70 

24. 

0,  UE,  EU,  U,  and  E 
1.   o 

2.  UE 

3.  EU 

4.    u 

5.     E 

6.    Orthographic  variants 

70-76 
.       70 
70-72 
.       72 
72-73 
73-74 
74-76 

oe,   74;   oi  (id),  74-75;   eo,  75-76;   on,  76; 

0,  76  ;  b,  76. 

25. 

Checked  0 "^"^ 

In 

1.     OU 

.       77 

2.    o  :  o 

.      77 

26. 

Locum,  focum,  jocum 

77-78 

27. 

0  before  a  palatal 

.      78 

28. 

O  before  L  mouill^e    . 

.       78 

29. 

O  before  a  nasal 

.       78 

30. 

O  before  N  mouill^e    . 

.       79 

31. 

Pretonic  0 

.      79 

CONTENTS 


Xlll 


Latin  U 
32.    1 


U  :  0  and  U  :  I 

2.    Orthographic  variants  (ui,  o) 
33.   U  (and  0)  before  a  palatal 

1.  UI,  u,  and  i 

2.  oi 

3.  UE 


Consonants 
M  and  N 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 


B 


Interchange 

N  after  r 

M  and  N  final 

M  and  N  and  the  nasalization  of  vowels 

Miscellaneous 

Confusion  of  n  and  I,  85  ;  confusion  in  or 
thography  of  n  and  gn,  85  ;  loss  of  etymologi 
cal  ?i,  85  ;  insertion  of  an  inorganic  n,  85. 


PAGE 

79 
79-80 

80 
80-82 

80 
80-81 

81 

81 
82-85 
,  82 
82-83 
.  83 
83-85 
.       85 


35.  L  (before  a  consonant) 

1.  L>U    . 

2.  L  lost  . 

3.  Final  l  >  u  (or  lost) 

4.  Miscellaneous 

Confusion   of    I   and   r,    87 ; 
inorganic  Z,  88. 

36.  L  and  N  mouill^es 

1.  Loss  of  palatilization 

2.  Orthographic  variants 


1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 


6. 


R  and  RR      .        .         . 
R  before  a  consonant  . 
R  +  I    . 
R  after  a  consonant 

e  inserted,  90  ;  r  lost,  90 
Metathesis  of  r   . 

-re  >  -er,  91 ;  -er  >  -re,  91 
Inorganic  r 


7.   Interchange  of  l  and  r 


T,  D       . 

39.  T  and  D  intervocalic 

40.  T  and  D  final      . 


85-89 

85-88 

.      86 

.       87 

.       87 

87-88 


Z+j>r,    88 


88-89 
.  88 
88-89 
89-91 
.  89 
.  90 
.  90 
.       90 


90-91 

.      91 
.      91 

91-92 
92-97 
02-93 
94-96 


xiv  CONTENTS 

PAQB 

41.   T  and  D  miscellaneous 96-97 

1.  Confusion  of  t  and  d  in  groups  ....       96 

2.  Final  x  and  d 96-97 

t,  d<z  (ts),  96-97;   final  t>d,  97;   final  t 
>  A;,  97  ;  final  t  lost,  97  ;  inorganic  final  t,  97. 
C    .        . 98-99 

1.  c  pronounced  as  k 98 

2.  c  pronounced  as  ts 98 

3.  c  pronounced  as  ch 98-99 

G 99 

V   99-100 

f       1.    Loss  of  V  in  groups  and  intervocalic   .        .        99-100 

2.    Confusion  of  v  and  f 100 

W 100 

J 100 

S  101-109 

47.  S  before  a  consonant 101-102 

48.  S  before  L  and  N 102-105 

1.  General  remarks  on  substitute  letters         .        ,     102 

2.  DL 103 

3.  LL 103-104 

4.  DN 104 

5.  GN 104-105 

49.  S  before  T 105-107 

1.  Early  retention  of  s 105 

2.  Fall  of  8 105-107 

Time,  105-106 ;  stages,  106-107. 

3.  English  words  with  st 107 

4.  -STR  >  -ISTR 107 

5.  Inorganic  s  +  t,  107. 

Summary 107-108 

50.  S  intervocalic 108 

51.  S  final 108 

1.  Miscellaneous 108-109 

MORPHOLOGY 110-129 

Definite  Article 110-111 

52.  1.    General 110 

2.  Accusative  for  nominative 110 

3.  Confusion  of  masculine  and  feminine  articles     .     110 

4.  Lu 110-111 


CONTENTS 


XV 


6. 

6. 

Adjectives 
Nouns    . 

1. 

2. 

3. 


LUI 

Miscellaneous 


Accusative  for  nominative 

NEFS,    SACS,    COLPS,  CtC. 

Miscellaneous 


Personal  Pronouns 

55.  First  person 

1.    JE  and  JOE  . 

2.     MI 

56.  Second  person     . 

1.  Tu  and  vous 

2.  ous 

57.  Third  person 

1.  Tonic  instead  of  atonic  forms 

2.  Confusion  of  forms  in  the  singular 

Masculine,  lu  =  lui^  lu  =  lo,  116  ; 
116-117. 

3.  Confusion  of  forms  in  the  plural 

is  =  il,    117  ;    es  =  eZes,    117  ;    il  = 
els  =  eles,  117  ;  les  =  Us,  117. 

Demonstrative  Pronouns 

Possessive  Pronouns 

1.  Feminine     . 

2.  Miscellaneous  forms 
Eelative  Pronouns 
Verbs 

61.   Interchange  of  conjugations 

1.     -EIR>-ER    . 


PAGE 

.   Ill 
.   Ill 

.     112 
112-114 
112-113 
113-114 
.     114 
114-117 
114-115 
114-115 
.     115 
.     115 
.     115 
.     115 
115-117 
.     116 
116-117 
feminine, 


117 


eles,   117  ; 


2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 


-RE,  -IR  >  -ER 


62. 


-ER  >  -RE 
-ER  >  -IR 
-lER  >  -IR     . 
-OIR  and  -DRE 

Present  indicative 

1.  First  person  singular 

-e,  120  ;  -c,  120-121 

2.  Second  person  singular 

-z,  121  ;  -is,  121. 

3.  Third  person  singular 

(,  121 ',  st  =  t,  121. 


.   117-118 

.  118 

.  118 

.    .118 

.  118 

.  119 

LS     .      .      . 

.   119-120 

.  119 

.  119 

.  119 

.  120 

.  120 

.  120 

.   120-122 

.   120-121 

IT           .     . 

.  121 

V 

.  121 

XVI 


CONTENTS 


4.  First  person  plural 

5.  Second  person  plural 

6.  Third  person  plural 

63.  Present  subjunctive    . 

1.  Forms  in  -ge 

2.  First  and  second  person  singular 

3.  Third  person  singular 

64.  Imperfect  indicative 

1.  Oldest  forms 

2.  -EIE,    -DIE     . 

3.  -EINT     . 

65.  Imperfect  subjunctive 

66.  Future 

67.  Preterite     . 

1.     -DEDI    . 

2.  -s  preterite  . 

3.  -ui  preterite 

4.  -lERENT  >  -IRENT 

5.  -EUMES  >  -UMES 

6.  -RENT  . 

68.  Past  participle     . 

69.  Miscellaneous  irregular  or  peculiar  forms 

avoir,  connaitre,  creire,  dire,  ester,  127  ; 
128;  faire,  getter,  plaire,  pouvoir,  128 
savoir,  trouver,  129. 

TEXT  ^ELECTIONS 

Philippe  de  Thatin  :  Cumpoz 

Oxford  Psalter 

Cambridge  Psalter 

Quatre  Livres  des  Kois 

Brandan 

Gaimar  . 

Adgar    . 

Fantosme 

Angier    . 

Chardri  . 

Guillaume  de  Berneville 

Vie  de  St.  Thomas 

Le  Chevalier,  La  Dame  et  Le  Clerc 

P61erinage  de  Charlemagne 

Bozon  .... 


PAGE 

.  122 
.  122 
.  122 
122-123 
.  122 
122-123 
.  123 
123-125 
.  123 
123-124 
124-125 
.  125 
.  125 
125-126 
125-12G 
126 
126 
126 
126 
126 
126-127 
127-129 
etre,  127- 
;  prendre, 


130-167 
130-135 
135-137 
137-138 
138-140 
140-143 
143-146 
147-148 
148-149 
150-154 
154-157 
157-160 
160-103 
163-164 
164-165 
165-167 


^      OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


INTRODUCTION 

I  NOW  offer  the  first  part  of  a  work,  the  advantages,  diffi- 
culties, and  necessary  deficiencies  of  which  students  of  Old 
French  dialects  will  at  once  appreciate.  We  have,  for  the 
present,  several  grammars  of  Old  French  which  are,  doubt- 
less, as  good  as  they  can  be  made  at  this  time ;  additions  to 
our  knowledge  of  that  subject  must  come,  for  the  most  part, 
from  two  sources :  A  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
individual  part  that  the  separate  Old  French  dialects  played 
in  the  history  of  various  phonological  or  morphological 
changes,  and  an  observation  of  the  bearing  which  modern 
dialects  and  sub-dialects  have  on  the  developments  of  the 
older  language.  Up  to  a  comparatively  few  years  ago  we 
heard  little  of  scientific  investigation  of  the  modern  dialects. 
Then,  almost  suddenly,  attention  was  diverted  to  them,  and 
scholars,  in  their  enthusiasm  for  this  new  study,  neglected 
a  most  essential  feature  of  work  done  by  many  minds,  as 
was  the  work  on  the  old  dialects :  They  omitted  a  gather- 
ing of  their  results,  the  synthesis  that  follows  analysis  and 
that  renders  conclusions  accessible  to  all.  Certain  it  is  that 
we  have  no  one  book  to  which  the  student  may  go  when  he 
wishes  to  learn,  for  example,  what  texts  belong  to  a  given 
dialect,  the  relative  dates  of  originals  and  manuscripts, 
or  even  the  exact  titles  of  printed  (and  especially  early) 
editions  of  the  texts ;  nor  is  there  a  place  where  he  may 
find  the  characteristics  of  the  dialects  succinctly  stated,  or 
a  guide  to  the  history  and  results  of  discussion  on  these 
characteristics. 

A  work  of  the  nature  just  indicated  is  lacking,  and  in  all 
these  years  no  one  has  even  promised  to  satisfy  our  needs 
in  this  regard.      I  therefore  present  now  the  first  cast  of 

xvii 


xviii       MANUAL  OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

the  first  book  of  reference  on  Old  French  dialects,  in  the 
hope  that  it  may  be  of  help  to  my  colleagues  who  are  special- 
izing on  other  points,  and  to  beginners  who  wish  to  learn 
something  of  Old  French  dialects  but  have  no  guide  of  the 
kind  through  the  labyrinth  of  information  which,  up  to  this 
time,  has  been  permitted  to  remain  scattered.  My  work  may 
be  dubbed  by  some  a  mere  "  compilation,"  though  scholars 
of  intimate  acquaintance  with  studies  on  dialects  will,  per- 
chance, give  me  credit  for  little  additions  to  our  knowledge 
of  that  subject,  interspersed  here  and  there  in  the  pages 
that  follow.  It  were  presumptuous  in  me  to  cite  as  my 
models  some  very  noteworthy  compilations,  the  constant 
companions  of  workers  in  Old  French  philology.  Besides, 
does  not  a  certain  and  even  a  large  portion  of  original  work 
consist  in  setting  old  facts  in  a  new  light  ?  1  intend  that 
my  compilation  shall  lend  to  each  dialect  as  presented  a 
definite  setting;  the  student  can  derive  from  it  definite 
ideas  and  information  with  regard  to  each  dialect,  its  texts 
and  peculiarities.  If  my  work  is  the  only  one  to  which  he 
may  go  for  both  general  and  detailed  information,  or  else 
for  references,  on  these  points,  it  needs  no  apology  for  its 
existence. 

I  have  reserved  any  discussion  of  the  general  questions  of 
the  origin,  development,  or  boundaries  of  dialects  until  I 
shall  have  completed  my  treatment  of  the  individual  dia- 
lects. A  satisfactory  resume  of  the  points  of  the  subject 
is  to  be  found  in  an  article  by  Horning.^  To  my  mind, 
"  Norman,"  ^'  Picard,"  "  Burgundian,"  "  Lorraine,"  and  the 
like,  whatever  else  the  terms  may  imply  as  names  of  dialects, 
will  always  be  used  to  indicate  given  points,  movable  if  you 
will,  around  which  are  to  be  grouped  certain  phenomena 
which  are  marked  in  those  regions;  the  fact  that  these 
dialect  districts  are  not  to  be  bounded  as  speech  regions  as 
definitely  as  they  are,  or  were,  politically  and  geographically 

1  Zt.  Bom.  Phil  XVII,  160<=-187  ;  cf.  Bomania,  XXII,  G04-607. 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

does  not  lessen  their  value  as  points  d^appui  for  the  student. 
In  that  sense  I  shall  use  the  names. 

The  reader  of  this  book  will  probably  wonder  at  times 
whether  the  work  is  meant  as  a  grammatical  treatise  or  as 
a  collection  of  references  —  a  bibliography.  In  a  way  it  is 
meant  as  both.  In  the  grammatical  part  I  have  tried  to 
write,  at  greater  or  less  length,  on  the  more  important 
points,  so  that  the  student  who,  presumably,  has  not  been 
over  the  ground  as  I  have,  may  know  at  once  what  these 
points  are.  In  the  bibliographical  portions  I  have  given 
the  essential  references  I  have  found  in  the  monographs, 
journals,  and  books  that  are  in  the  average  library  of  insti- 
tutions where  studies  like  the  present  are  likely  to  be 
pursued.  I  have  endeavored  to  select,  in  the  first  place, 
representative  texts  (and  not  all  the  texts)  of  the  begin- 
ning, middle,  and  end  of  the  centuries  in  which  the  given 
dialect  literature  may  be  said  to  have  flourished  (using 
the  word  "  literature,"  of  course,  in  a  restricted  sense) ; 
again,  I  have  chosen  those  texts  to  be  consulted  in  collec- 
tions like,  for  example,  the  Altfranzosische  Bibliothek  or  the 
Anciens  Textes  Frangais,  or  else  those  published  in  journals, 
especially  in  the  Romania  and  the  Zeitschrift  fUr  Romanische 
Fhilologie  ;^  my  object  has  been  to  use  those  texts  to  which 
the  student  is  most  likely  to  have  access.  My  book  is 
intended,  for  the  most  part,  as  a  guide  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  student  when  he  is  working  for  himself  on  the  points 
to  which  I  refer.  For  example,  I  do  not  indicate  the  loca- 
tion of  manuscripts  further  than  to  say  they  are  of  London 
or  Paris,  as  it  may  be ;  I  make  only  what  I  consider  neces- 
sary remarks  about  some  of  the  manuscripts.  Any  one  wish- 
ing to  look  up  any  especial  manuscript  mentioned  can  easily 
find  his  way  by  following  my  references.     I  hope  that  these 

1  To  which  I  shall  usually  refer  as  "i?owi.  "  and  "Z^.,"  for  the 
sake  of  brevity.  The  third  most  commonly  cited  journal,  the  Litera- 
turhlatt  fur  Germanische  und  Bomanische  Fhilologie,  I  refer  to  as 
''LitblV 


XX  MANUAL   OF  OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

and  all  othor  references  will  snggest  sufficient  information 
to  put  the  right  kind  of  a  student  on  the  right  track  for 
investigations  of  his  own.  When,  in  his  study  of  my  work, 
such  a  student  arrives  at  the  stage  where  he  can  detect 
deficiencies  in  the  work,  I  shall  feel  that  my  labor  has  not 
been  in  vain, 

I  begin  with  the  Anglo-Norman  dialect  as  being  probably 
the  most  important  for  the  general  student  of  Old  French 
philology.  This  importance  is  derived  from  the  following 
fact :  The  first  half-dozen  texts  in  our  list  offer  us  speech 
characteristics  of  an  Old  French  dialect  at  a  time  for  which 
manuscripts  in  the  lle-de-France  dialect  are  unknown. 
Many  phenomena  recorded  in  our  early  texts  become,  at  a 
later  date,  jjart  of  the  history  of  the  lle-de-France  speech. 
The  study  of  the  first  appearances  of  such  phenomena  must, 
then,  be  of  the  greatest  importance. 

My  order  of  treatment  for  each  dialect  will  be  the  fol- 
lowing :  — 

I.  Any  necessary  general  remarks  on  the  given  dialect 
as  a  whole,  its  especial  significance,  its  difficulties,  or  any 
question  of  importance  raised  by  students  of  the  dialect. 

II.  Bibliography  of  the  most  important  representative 
texts  in  the  given  dialect,  and  detailed  information  with 
regard  to  these  texts.  This  information  will  be  comprised 
under  the  following  headings,  and  always  in  the  order  here 
indicated :  — 

1.  General  notes  on  the  text  or  its  author. 

2.  The  published  edition  used  by  me. 

3.  Notes  on  the  manuscripts  followed  in  these  editions. 

4.  Date  of  the  original  composition  of  the  text,  or  date 
of  the  manuscript  on  which  the  edition  is  based.^ 

5.  References  to  detailed  studies  on  the  language  of  each 
text. 

III.  Phonology  and  morphology  of  the  given  dialect. 

1  It  may  sometimes  be  more  convenient  to  give  the  date  of  the  Ms. 
in  connection  with  the  remarks  under  §  3. 


THE   ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT 


ff       ^     OFT 

Of  / 


THE  ANGLO-NOKMAN   DIALECT 

I.    GENEEAL  CONSIDEEATIONS 

What  is  Anglo-Norman?  The  name  indicates  that  Anglo- 
Norman  is  the  speech  carried  into  England  by  the  Normans 
and  there  so  modified  as  to  need  a  new  name  to  distinguish 
it  from  Norman  spoken  on  the  continent.  We  must  not 
suppose,  however,  that  we  have  to  do  with  an  idiom  which, 
brought  over  by  the  Norman  colony,  —  transplanted  on  new 
soil,  so  to  speak,  —  underwent  a  regular  course  of  gradual 
growth  followed  by  gradual  decay ;  such  was  not  the  case. 
The  one  great  distinguishing  characteristic  of  Anglo-Nor- 
man is  its  irregularity. 

To  explain.  The  first  question  of  the  inquiring  student 
will  be :  What  was  the  influence  of  French  on  English,  and 
what  was  the  influence  of  English  on  French  ?  Was  the 
modification  of  the  French  language  which  took  place  on 
English  territory  due  to  the  contact  and  the  mutual  influ- 
ence of  the  two  languages?  The  limited  extent  of  the 
influence  of  any  such  contact  on  the  French  becomes  evident 
when  we  note  the  very  restricted  progress  that  French  made 
in  England,  and  the  consequent  lack  of  probability  of  modi- 
fications arising  from  a  defective  use  of  French  by  the  inhab- 
itants of  England.  French  never  became  the  language  of 
the  populace ;  many  facts  indicate  that  it  was  employed 
mostly  by  the  higher,  perhaps  to  some  degree  by  the  mid- 
dle classes,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  it  may 
not  have  been  at  least  understood  by  people  outside  of  those 
classes ;  writings  like  those  of  Bozon  (first  half  of  the  four- 
teenth century,  cf .  p.  35)  were  surely  not  addressed  to  court 
circles.     It  was,  nevertheless,  essentially  the  language  of 

B  1 


2  MANUAL  OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

the  higher  circles,  and  even  among  these  its  cultivation  was 
not  of  long  continuance.  Toward  the  end  of  the  thirteenth 
century  we  find  that  a  knight,  Gautier  de  Bibbysworth,^ 
compiled  an  elementary  treatise  for  the  benefit  of  children 
of  the  aristocracy  who  might  wish  to  learn  French.  This 
fact  points  toward  English  and  not  French  as  the  mother 
tongue  of  the  English  aristocracy  of  the  time.  Toward  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourteenth  century  French  was  not  even 
taught  regularly  in  the  schools,  nor  to  children  of  the 
nobles,  nor  used  in  court.  At  this  time  begin  English  trans- 
lations of  French  originals,  and  Langland  and  Chaucer  com- 
mence to  write. 

Furthermore,  though  this  seems  but  natural,  French  did 
not  impress  itself  except  in  those  sections  of  England  where 
Frenchmen  actually  settled.  In  more  than  one  province  it 
remained  either  entirely  unintelligible  or  else  little  known. 
In  any  possibility  of  organic  development  the  transplanted 
language  evidently  lacked,  therefore,  an  indispensable  ele- 
ment of  organic  growth,  —  becoming  a  part  of  the  life  of 
the  great  masses  of  the  people ;  it  had  no  new  blood  in- 
fused into  it,  so  to  speak,  and  was  doomed  to  early  decay. 
The  first  evidences  of  this  decay  took  the  form  of  simplifi- 
cation; such  as,  in  phonology,  the  monophthongization  of 
diphthongs;  in  morphology,  the  reduction  of  cases.  Our 
Anglo-Norman  writers  had  no  vigorous  living  tongue  to  draw 
on ;  they  were  far  removed  from  the  mother  French,  and 
they  were  hearing  English  all  about  them.  Thus  it  was  that 
they  forgot  many  niceties  of  speech  observed  on  the  conti- 
nent, and  thus  it  is  that  we  find  examjDles  of  simplifications 
in  Anglo-Norman  before  we  note  them  on  the  continent. 
(This  explains,  incidentally,  why  illustrations  of  develop- 
ments in  Anglo-Norman  figure  so  largely  in  our  Old  French 
grammars.) 

If,  then,  Anglo-Norman  did  not  enjoy  a  regular  organic 
development,  our  writers  had  no  stable  usage  of  the  language 

1  Cf .  Bom.  XXXII,  44. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  3 

in  England  from  which  to  draw ;  the  only  check  on  licenses 
they  took  with  the  idiom  was,  therefore,  their  greater  or  less 
acquaintance  with  French  of  the  continent,  and  we  must 
expect  the  usage  of  each  writer  to  vary  according  to  his 
knowledge   of   that   French,  and   his  communication  with 
France.     This  personal  equation,  this  independence  of  each 
individual  author,  goes  far  toward  explaining  irregularities 
in  Anglo-Norman,  and  is  typical  of  it.     We  need  not  be 
surprised  to  find  a  writer,  even  in  the  last  days  of  Anglo- 
Norman,  using  French  that  is  quite  correct,  like,  for  exam- 
ple,  that   found   in   the   Bible   translation   spoken   of    on 
page  33.      While   it  is   most   important  to  recognize    the 
fact  of  variations  in  the  language  incidental  to  the   vary- 
ing degree  of  culture  of  each  writer,  we  must  not  forget, 
either,  that  there  do  exist  numbers  of  traits  common  to 
Anglo-Norman  authors  and  scribes  as  a  whole ;  in  no  case, 
however,  do  these  traits  represent  stages  of  consistent  devel- 
opment.    They  are  but  the  decay,  the  simplification  already 
referred  to,  illustrations  of  carelessness  as  to  distinctions 
that. were  being  observed  on  the  continent.     That  most  of 
these   simplifications   should   later   take   place   in   French 
proper  makes  a  study  of  the  circumstances  attendant  upon 
their  history  in  Anglo-Norman  the  more  interesting.     Such 
changes  on  the  mainland  were,  as  a  rule,  consequent  upon 
the  action  of  some  general  principle,  and  their  regular  course 
can  be  traced  in  texts  of  the  continent.     In  Anglo-Norman 
the  alterations  were,  for  the  most  part,  fortuitous ;  they  are 
not  necessarily  general  among  the  writers  of  any  one  epoch, 
and  fixed  time  limits  can  hardly  be  assigned  for  them. 

We  have  still  another  reason  for  irregularities  in  this  dia- 
lect, though  it  is  rather  a  further  illustration  of  the  one  just 
referred  to  (individual  prerogative  in  Anglo-Norman).  We 
need  not  think  that  the  term  "  Anglo-Norman  "  refers  exclu- 
sively to  the  dialect  of  the  province  of  Normandy  as  used  in 
England.  History  indicates  that  men  from  many  parts  of 
France  took  part  in  the  expedition  of  William  the  Conqueror. 


4  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

Moreover,  several  phenomena  may  be  cited  in  Anglo-Nor- 
man which,  are  not  to  be  found  in  Norman.  It  seems  but 
natural  to  suppose,  however,  that  the  essential  basis  of  the 
original  French  in  England  was  Norman,  and,  for  that 
matter,  Norman  influence  had  been  at  work  in  England 
twenty-four  years  before  the  advent  of  the  Conqueror ;  that 
is,  during  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Confessor.  The  prepon- 
derating political  influence  in  England  was  that  of  Norman 
leaders,  and  the  literary  men  of  France  most  likely  to  be 
attracted  to  England  were  Norman  men  of  letters,  —  friends, 
it  may  be,  of  the  political  chiefs.  Any  exclusive  Norman 
influence  must  have  waned,  however,  at  least  after  the  end 
of  the  twelfth  century,  since  in  1204  the  individuality  of 
Normandy  itself  was  merged  into  that  of  the  lle-de-France ; 
furthermore,  during  the  reign  of  Henry  III  (1216-1272), 
who  married  Eleanor  of  Provence,  the  court  colony  received 
additions  from  the  southern  provinces  of  France.  We  may 
say  then  that  "Anglo-Norman"  seems  to  designate  more 
aptly  the  early  period  of  the  dialect,  while  "  Anglo-French," 
as  used  by  some  scholars,  would  better  apply  to  the  latter 
part  of  it ;  neither  defines  accurately  the  entire  period. 

We  have  now  seen  that  our  dialect  underwent  no  pro- 
gressive, organic  development ;  the  history  of  the  language 
cannot  be  divided  into  successive  stages,  either  according 
to  dates  or  according  to  leading  lines  of  growth ;  the  dialect 
is,  to  a  great  extent,  the  product  of  the  individual  caprices 
of  writers ;  it  has  not  even  a  fitting  name.  The  only  gen- 
eral definition  of  Anglo-Norman  possible  is  that  it  is  bad 
French  as  used  in  England  (during  the  Middle  Ages)  ;  even 
at  this  point  we  have  to  modify  our  characterization  by 
saying  that  it  was  often  "  bad  "  only  as  regards  the  date  of 
its  use,  since  what  was  "  bad  "  French  in  Anglo-Norman  terri- 
tory, afterwards  might  become  good  French  on  the  continent, 
where  Anglo-Norman  simplifications  often  became  the  rule. 

I  have  already  manifested  my  want  of  confidence  in  the 
feasibility    of    dividing    Anglo  -  Norman   phenomena   into 


ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT  5 

periods.     Perhaps  I  should  say  something  of  the  so-called 
"  sub-dialects,''  supposed  by  some  to  exist  within  the  Anglo- 
Norman.     If  what  I  have  said  with  regard  to  the  lack  of 
any  stable,  organic  principle  of  life  in  Anglo-Norman  be  true, 
surely  little  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  any  divisions  of  the 
language  within  that  dialect.     Indications  of  such  divisions 
have  been  traced,  at  least  between  the  north  and  the  south, 
as  based,  for  example,  on  the  rhyming  or  not  rhyming  of 
u  with  il.     It  is  almost  an  axiom  that  a  language  which  is 
being  learned  by  an  individual,  or  collectively  by  a  town,  a 
province,  or  a  nation,  becomes  modified  in  proportion  to  the 
difficulties  of  the  learners  in  imitating  the  sounds  of  the 
new  language  they  hear  about  them.     Now  if  French  made 
little  headway  among  the  masses  of  English-speaking  people, 
variations  in  one  of   our  texts  as  compared  with  another 
hardly  arose  from  the  greater  or  less  ease  with  which  the 
writer,  or  the  people  of  the  section  from  which  the  writer 
came,    learned    and    spoke    French.     The  average  Anglo- 
Norman  scribe  represented  only  himself ;  he  availed  himself 
of  French  as  a  literary  exercise  in  most  cases,   and  the 
peculiarities  in  his  text  reflect  mainly  his  individual  caprice. 
From  what  sources,  then,  can  we  derive  any  justification 
for  supposing  sufficient  cohesion  or  crystallization  in  any 
one  section  of  the  country  to  dignify  that  section  with  the 
appellation  of  a  ^'  sub-dialect "  ?  ^ 

1  Bibliography  on  the  foregoing  pages,  and  general  Anglo-Norman 
bibliography  :  The  above  ideas  are  derived  from  many  sources,  —  notes 
Jotted  down  in  the  course  of  much  reading.  I  append  a  few  refer- 
ences :  — 

For  a  general  introduction  to  the  study  of  Anglo-Norman,  see 
Vising  :  Etude  sur  le  Dialecte  Anglo-Normand  du  XIF  Steele, 
Upsala,  1882,  pp.  5-15  ;  Behrens  in  Paul's  Grundriss  der  Germanischen 
Philologie,  I^,  799  ss.,  and  in  Franzosische  Studien,  V,  heft  2  ;  Meyer 
in  the  introduction  to  the  edition  of  Bozon  (cf.  below,  p.  35),  pp. 
lii-lvii. 

For  expressions  concerning  the  effect  of  the  influence  of  individual 
authors  in  Anglo-Norman,  see  Vising,  ^tude,  pp.  13  and  14  ;  Mall, 


MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 


II.    TEXTS 

I  have  endeavored  to  arrange  the  texts,  now  to  be  enumer- 
ated, in  chronological  order.  In  doing  this  several  methods 
occur  to  one.  For  example,  we  might  adopt  an  arrangement 
according  to  the  time  in  which  the  original  was  actually 

Cumpoz  (cf.  below,  p.  9),  pp.  39,  40,  and  63;  Bomania,  I,  71;  XII, 
201  ;  Zt.  Mom.  Phil.  VI,  485  ;  XXI,  575. 

For  the  term  ''Anglo-French"  and  distinctions  to  be  observed  be- 
tween Norman  and  general  French  influence  in  Anglo-Norman,  see 
Suchier,  Fran^ais  et  Frovengalj  p.  163  ;  Grober's  Grundriss,  I,  572  ; 
Franzos.  Stud.  V,  2,  2  ;  Bom,  XXVIII,  151  ;  KriL  Jhrsbrcht.  Fort- 
schritte  Bom.  Phil.  II,  1,  248  ;  Paul's  Grundriss,  I^,  808, 

Some  notes  on  sub-dialects  may  be  seen  in  Vising,  £tudej  pp.  11-12, 
and  in  Litblt.  Germ.  u.  Bom.  Phil.  IX,  176. 

There  are  two  further  points  to  which  reference  should  be  made, 
detailed  treatment  of  which  is  forbidden  by  the  nature  of  my  Manual 
as  a  whole.  These  points  are  the  use  of  accent  marks  in  Anglo-Nor- 
man manuscripts  and  peculiarities  of  Anglo-Norman  versification. 
On  the  accents  we  have  the  monograph  of  K,  Lincke  :  Die  Accente  im 
Oxforder  und  im  Camhridger  Psalter  sowie  in  anderen  altfranzosischen 
Handschriften,  Erlangen,  1886.  The  following  occasional  references 
may  be  added  :  Zt.  Bom.  Phil.  Ill,  161  ;  X,  299  ;  Bomajiia,  XII, 
208,  434  ;  Suchier,  Grammatik,  p.  8  ;  Plahn,  Quatre  Livres  des  Bets 
(full  title  below,  p.  16),  p.  5  (here  are  many  useful  references); 
Cloran,  Dialogues  of  Gregory  (see  below,  p.  21),  p.  72. — For  the 
study  of  Anglo-Norman  versification  the  best  starting-point  is  the 
review  by  P.  Meyer  (Bomania,  XV,  144),  of  a  dissertation  on 
the  subject  by  Vising.  Important  remarks  by  Koschwitz  and  Mus- 
safia  are  to  be  found  in  Zt.  Bom.  Phil.  II,  339  ;  III,  597. 

The  following  books  are  almost  indispensable  in  a  study  of  Anglo- 
Norman,  and  I  shall  take  it  for  granted  that  they  are  in  the  hands 
of  every  student  using  my  work :  Suchier,  Grammatik.,  and  Vie 
de  Seint  Auban  (cf .  below,  p.  28) ;  Stiirzinger,  Orthographia  Gallica 
{Altfranz.  Bibl.  VIII),  Heilbronn,  1884  ;  Behrens  (work  just  re- 
ferred to);  Stimming,  Boeve  (cf.  below,  p.  26).  This  last  volume 
mentioned  (Boeve)  comes  near  combining  most  of  the  others  cited. 
I  hope  I  may  facilitate  the  use  of  it  for  the  beginner  by  the  headings 
I  have  adopted  in  the  treatment  of  ray  subject,  and  by  the  frequent 
references  to  Stimming. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  7 

composed.  This  time  may  be  approximated  in  three  ways : 
First,  from  a  consideration  of  the  established  facts  as  to 
dates  in  the  lives  of  the  authors.  But  in  the  case  of  most 
of  our  texts,  even  when  the  name  of  the  author  is  known, 
which  is  rarely  the  case,  our  biographical  notices  of  him  are 
most  meagre.  Second,  from  internal  evidence.  Such  evi- 
dence is  obtainable,  for  the  most  part,  only  in  works  dealing 
with  historical  or  legendary  material ;  in  dealing  with  histori- 
cal evidence  we  are  too  often  thwarted  by  the  inaccuracy  of 
historical  allusions,  and  there  exist  few  legends  out  of  the 
great  mass  of  mediaeval  material,  the  date  of  whose  appear- 
ance or  episodes  can  be  or  have  been  accurately  stated. 
Third,  from  a  study  of  the  language.  Here  we  have  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  language  of  the  author  and  that  of  the 
writer  or  copyist  of  the  manuscript.  (In  only  one  Anglo- 
Norman  text  are  we  sure  that  author  and  scribe  were  one 
and  the  same  person,  viz.,  in  that  of  Frere  Angier ;  cf.  p.  21.) 
Such  a  distinction  is  possible  to  any  important  extent  only 
in  poetical  compositions,  where  the  rhymes  furnish  a  com- 
paratively stable  element ;  and  even  then  deductions  have 
to  be  weighed  most  carefully  (the  prose  text  of  the  Lois 
de  Guillaume  is  one  of  the  exceptions  here;  cf.  p.  11).  The 
majority  of  our  texts  have  not  been  studied  with  this  espe- 
cial point  in  view. 

Or  again,  we  may  arrange  our  texts  by  following  the  dates 
of  the  manuscripts  at  our  command.  These  dates  are 
arrived  at  with  fair  accuracy  by  the  science  of  paleography. 
This  science  affords  the  only  criteria  that  may  be  applied  to 
all  our  texts  alike,  because  it  follows  in  every  case  certain 
definite  and  fixed  principles  of  discrimination.  The  manu- 
script represents,  as  a  rule,  as  far  as  anything  we  have  can 
represent  it,  the  language  used  by  the  scribe  and  his  con- 
temporaries (though  even  at  best  the  scribe's  mode  of  repre- 
senting the  language  will  be  modified  by  previous  training 
and  tradition;  by  the  character  of  the  original  or  copy 
which  he  is  transcribing,  and  by  other  circumstances).     In 


8  MANUAL  OF  OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

the  study  of  individual  authors,  it  may  be  of  prime  impor- 
tance to  fix  the  date  of  the  compositions  of  the  author. 
But  in  an  investigation  such  as  the  present,  where  we  are 
concerned  with  dialects  as  a  whole,  we  are  more  interested 
in  the  monuments  of  that  dialect  arranged  so  as  to  show  the 
consecutive  history  of  the  language.  I  have,  therefore,  fol- 
lowed the  order  of  the  time  of  the  manuscripts  of  my  texts 
as  nearly  as  I  could.  For  the  sake  of  consistency  I  have 
adopted  this  arrangement  even  when  the  date  of  the  original 
composition  is  accurately  known  (in  which  cases  I  have  indi- 
cated such  dates  as  well  as  those  of  the  manuscripts).  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  order  of  most  of  the  earliest  (and  more 
important)  texts  would  not  be  seriously  affected  by  rear- 
ranging them  according  to  the  known  or  supposed  dates  of 
their  original  forms. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  with  regard  to  all  of  our  earlier 
texts,  those,  viz.,  of  the  middle  and  last  part  of  the  twelfth 
century,  that  for  many  reasons  they  might  almost  equally 
well  be  classed  as  Norman,  —  because  of  the  comparatively 
slight  variations  in  their  forms  as  compared  with  those  of 
Norman  texts  of  the  continent ;  because,  in  some  cases,  the 
author  or  copyist  was  born  in  Normandy ;  because  the  date 
of  the  original  compositions  fell  so  shortly  after  that  of  the 
Norman  Conquest. 

PHILIPPE   DE  THAiJN 

1.  Philippe  is  our  first  real  Anglo-Norman  author.  He 
may  be  called  so,  however,  only  because  his  language  begins 
to  show  traces  of  peculiarities  which  later  became  charac- 
teristic of  Anglo-Norman  (such  as  ie :  e,  o :  q,  and  the  loss 
of  inflection).     Otherwise  he  might  be  classed  as  Norman.^ 

1  Cf.  Mall,  Cumpoz,  pp.  19,  36,  40,  45,  08,  100  ;  G.  Paris,  Vie  St. 
Gilles,  p.  XV  (full  title  below,  p.  23)  ;  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  483, 
For  the  few  facts  we  have  of  Philippe's  life,  cf.  Wright,  Biographia 
Britannica  Literaria.  Anglo-Norman  period,  London,  1846,  p.  86  ; 
Walberg,  Bestiaire,  p.  xvii.  Thaiin  (Taiin,  Thaon,  Than)  is  near 
Caen,  in  Normandy. 


Ai^TGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT 


CUMPOZ 


2.  Li  Cumpoz  FhiUpe  de  Thaiin,  herausgegeben  von  E. 
Mall,  Strassburg,  1873.  The  introduction  (111  pages)  to 
this  edition  is  one  of  the  important  early  contributions  to 
the  general  science  of  Old  French  philology,  and  remains  a 
standard  work  to  this  day. 

3.  Mall  used  four  principal  manuscripts,  all  Anglo-Nor- 
man, besides  notes  on  three  others  from  the  Vatican. 
These  are  all  described  at  length  (pp.  1-19).  Mall  fol- 
lows the  S[loane]  Ms.  of  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  when  supported  by  one  of  the  older  Mss.,  of  which 
the  most  authoritative  is  the  imperfect  A[rundel]  Ms.  of 
the  twelfth  century.  The  L[incoln]  and  the  C[otton]  Mss. 
are  of  about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century. 

4.  The  Cumpoz  is  older  than  the  Bestiaire;  this  becomes 
evident  from  a  comparison  of  speech  differences  and  from 
internal  evidence ;  the  Cumpoz  was  written  before  the  end 
of  February,  1120.^     The  year  generally  given  is  1119. 

5.  For  the  language  see  Mall's  introduction.  There  is 
likewise  a  separate  study  (of  70  pages)  by  L.  Fenge :  Sprach- 
liche  Untersuchung  der  Reime  des  Computus,  in  Stengel's  Aus- 
gahen  und  Abhandlungen,  LV,  Marburg,  1886.  This  work 
comprises  a  Rimarium,  a  Grammar  of  the  rhymes  (pp. 
18-34),  and  a  Glossary  of  the  Cumpoz. 

BESTIAIRE 

1,  2.  Le  Bestiaire  de  Philippe  de  Thaun,  E.  Walberg,  Paris, 
1900.2 

3.  For  the  Mss.  add  to  the  information  in  the  edition 
the  note  referred  to  in  Romania,   XXXI,   175.     Walberg 

iCf.  Mall,  pp.  20,  24;  Walberg,  Bestiaire,  V-  Ixxx ;  G.  Paris,  Lit 
Fr.  Moij.  Age,  p.  246. 

2Cf.  the  additional  notes  by  Walberg  in  Zt.  Bom.  Phil.  XXV, 
697  and  the  careful  reviews  of  Paris,  Bom.  XXIX,  589  ;  Herzog,  Zt. 
XXVI,  248,  aad  Tobler,  Herrig's  Archiv,  CV,  194. 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


OF 


J 


10  MANUAL  OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

used  as  a  basis  the  London  Ms.  of  the  second  half  of 
the  twelfth  century,  written  in  the  same  dialect  as  the 
original. 

4.  The  usual  date  assigned  to  this  text  is  about  1130; 
Walberg  thinks  it  before,  rather  than  after,  that  year. 

5.  For  the  language  see  Wal berg's  introduction. 

ALEXIS 

1.  This  text  finds  a  place  in  our  present  bibliography  in 
so  far  as  the  two  oldest  Mss.,  and  probably  one  other,  were 
written  in  England.^ 

2.  La  Vie  de  Saint  Alexis,  G.  Paris  et  L.  Pannier,  Paris, 
1872.  This  edition  (together  with  Mall's  Cumpoz,  already 
referred  to)  marks  an  epoch  in  the  science  of  Old  French 
philology. 

3.  The  Anglo-Norman  Mss.  are  known  as  Mss.  L  and  A. 
The  first  is  so  designated  from  the  Abbey  of  Lambspringen 
to  which  it  belonged  originally.  This  Ms.  has  been  edited 
separately  four  different  times,  first  by  Mueller,  in  1845. 
Its  date  is  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century.^  Paris,  in  his 
edition  (pp.  171-176),  gives  a  detailed  collation  of  it.  Ms. 
A  is  of  the  Ashburnham  collection,  quite  inferior  to  L,  but 
hardly  any  later.  It  suffered  from  a  "  corrector  "  of  a  little 
later  date  than  the  copyist;  the  "corrector"  tried  to  im- 
prove A  by  such  means  as  changing  the  assonances  to 
rhymes ;  to  this  end  he  sacrificed  sense,  grammar,  and 
metre,  and  often  rendered  his  original  unintelligible.  Paris 
gives  variants  from  this  Ms.  at  the  foot  of  each  page  of  his 
text.^    Ms.  P,  now  in  Paris,  was  probably  written  in  Eng- 

^  The  Alexis  (meaning  thereby  the  Alexis  of  the  Anglo-Norman 
Mss.)  is  often  referred  to  as  an  Anglo-Norman  text.  Cf.,  for  example, 
Meyer-Liibke,  Oram.  Lang.  Bom.  II,  396  ;  Zt.  Bom.  Phil.  IV,  544 ; 
Such.  Gram.  p.  5. 

2  Cf.  Paris  ed.  pp.  2,  3,  28,  and  137. 

«  Cf,  the  edition,  pp.  2,  4,  and  137. 


\ 


ANGLO-NORMAN    DIALECT  11 

land ;   it  is   of  the  latter  part  of   the  thirteenth   century. 
Paris  gives  variants  from  this  Ms.  too.' 

4.  The  date  has  already  been  referred  to  as  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth  century. 

5.  I  know  of  no  separate  study  on  the  language  of  the 
Anglo-Norman  Mss.  alone. 


'O^ 


LAWS  OF   WILLIAM  THE   CONQUEROR 

1.  This  text  forms  one  of  a  numerous  collection  of  laws, 
charts,  decisions,  and  the  like,  of  the  time  of  the  French 
occupation  of  England.  William  probably  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  compilation,  but  it  was  attributed  to  him  for 
the  sake  of  the  authority  of  his  name,  as  were  others  to 
Edward  the  Confessor  or  to  Henry  I. 

2.  The  text  has  been  edited  a  number  of  times,  the  first 
edition  bearing  the  early  date  of  1623 ;  the  last  edition  is 
that  of  J.  E.  Matzke :  Lois  de  GiuUaume  le  Conquerant  en 
Francais  et  en  Latin.  Textes  et  Etude  Critique,  avec  une 
preface  historiqne  par  C.  Bemont,  Paris,  1899,-  The  Latin 
text  referred  to  in  the  title  (and  printed  in  this  edition  in 
columns  parallel  to  the  French  laws)  is  one  that  is  proved 
by  Matzke  to  have  been  copied  from  the  French  (though  not 
from  the  French  Ms.  preserved  to  us). 

3.  The  single  extant  Ms.  of  Holkham  (Norfolk)  was  writ- 
ten about  1230.  The  other  Mss.  (at  least  six)  were  lost,  but 
not  before  being  utilized  in  editions  previous  to  that  of 
Matzke. 

1  Cf.  p.  3.  The  exact  text  of  the  Mss.  L,  A,  and  P  is  given  in 
Foerster  und  Koschwitz,  Uebungsbuch,  second  ed.  Leipzig,  1902. 
Paris  himself  gives  this  reference  in  his  latest  edition  of  the  text  of 
the  Alexis,  Paris,  Bouillon,  1903,  p.  8.     Cf.  Bom.  XXXI,  401. 

2  In  connection  with  this  edition,  the  detailed  review  of  Suchier, 
Litblt.  Germ.  u.  Bom.  Phil.  XXII,  119,  must  be  taken  into  account ; 
also  that  of  Paris,  Bom.  XXIX,  153.  There  is  a  searching  study 
on  the  general  subject  of  the  Lois  in  Arch.  Stud.  Neu.  Spr.  u.  Lit. 
CVI,  113-138  (Liebermann).     Cf.  ibid.  CVII,  134. 


12  MANUAL   OF   OLD  FKENCH  DIALECTS 

4.  The  state  of  the  language  in  the  Holkham  Ms.  is  much 
at  variance  with  what  we  might  expect  to  find,  judging  from 
the  date  of  the  Ms.  In  fact,  the  phonology  is  in  many  cases 
more  consistently  representative  of  earliest  Anglo-Norman 
than  is  that  of  the  Psalters  or  Philippe  even.  For  this  rea- 
son I  place  this  text  in  my  earliest  group.  Matzke  supposed 
the  composition  of  the  Lois  to  have  been  between  1150  and 
1170.  Paris  and  Suchier  (in  their  reviews)  favor  an  earlier 
date,  the  reign  of  Henry  I  (1100-1135). 

5.  Matzke  studies  at  length  the  language  of  the  text  (pp. 
xli-lii),  comparing  it  with  that  of  the  oldest  Anglo-Norman 
monuments. 

OXFORD   PSALTER 

1.  This  text  shows  some  characteristic  Anglo-Norman 
traits,  though  not  to  such  an  extent  as  does  the  Cambridge 
Psalter} 

2.  The  first  and  only  complete  edition  is  that  of  Fran- 
cisque  Michel :  Libri  Psalmorum  Versio  Antiqua  Oallica, 
Oxonii,  1860,  376  pp. 

3.  The  Ms.  used  as  a  basis  by  Michel  was  that  in  the 
Bodleian  Library ;  hence  the  name,  "  Oxford "  Psalter. 
Since  it  is  probable  that  the  Oxford  Ms.  was  written  in 
the  "  Monasterii  Montisburgi "  (that  is,  Montebourg  in  Nor- 
mandy), the  name  "  Montebourg "  Psalter  is  really  more 
appropriate  than  the  time-honored  "  Oxford  "  Psalter.-  The 
date  of  this  Ms.  is  toward  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century.^ 

4.  As  for  the  date  of  the  original  we  may  say  only  that 
the  Psalter  was  probably  translated  in  the  course  of  the 
first  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  that  it  is  certainly 

1  Cf.  Zt.  Bom.  Phil.  I,  569.  Much  interesting  and  valuable  infor- 
mation on  Anglo-Norman  versions  of  various  parts  of  the  Bible  is  given 
by  Berger  in  his  Bible  Fran<^aise  au  3Ioyen  Age,  Paris,  1884.  See 
Meyer's  review  of  the  same,  Bom.  XVII,  121,  and  cf.  Grober,  Orund- 
riss,  II,  1,  484. 

2  Cf.  Zt.  I,  669;  Bom.  IX,  626.  »  guch.  Gram.  p.  4. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  13 

older  than  the  Cambridge  Psalter,  as  is  shown  by  certain 
peculiarities  of  its  language ;  for  example,  medial  e  is  not 
dropped,  I  does  not  vocalize,  the  III  declension  nouns  her, 
jugierre,  etc.,  do  not  take  s  in  the  nominative,  -abat  and 
-EBAT  endings  are  kept  distinct,  —  the  opposite  of  the  state 
of  affairs  for  all  these  points  in  the  Cambridge  Psalter} 

5.  On  the  phonology  of  the  Oxford  Psalter  we  have 
the  work  of  F.  Harseim,  Vokalismus  und  Consonantismus 
im  Oxforder  Psalter,  Romanische  Studien,  IV,  273-327, — 
a  somewhat  diffuse  and  unequally  proportioned  article, 
though  easy  to  refer  to  on  account  of  its  many  subdivi- 
sions.^ For  the  morphology,  there  is  the  work  of  J.  H. 
Meister,  Die  Flexion  im  Oxforder  Psalter,  Halle,  1877,  121 
pp.,  which  is  to  be  controlled  by  the  lengthy  review,  amount- 
ing to  a  new  article,  of  Koschwitz  in  Zt.  Rom.  Phil.  II,  480- 
489.  A  useful  portion  of  Meister's  work  consists  of  his 
three  pages  of  corrections  (118-121)  of  Michel's  text,  the 
result  of  his  own  collation  of  the  Oxford  Ms. 

CAMBRIDGE   PSALTER 

1.  The  evident  Anglo-Norman  provenance  of  this  text  has 
already  been  referred  to  (p.  12).  The  study  of  speech  dif- 
ferences within  the  text  shows  that  the  Psalter,  as  we  have 
it,  is  the  work  of  three  different  copyists  or  translators. 
The  first  part,  psalms  I  to  CXXIV,  is  the  only  one  that  may 
be  attributed  to  the  old  translator  of  the  Versio  Hehraica. 
From  CXXIV  to  CXXXI  there  is  a  break.  The  second 
part,  CXXXI  to  CXLVIII,  had  as  its  translator  the  copyist 
of  the  first  part.  The  third  part.  Canticles,  etc.,  is  from  a 
translation  of  the  Galilean  Psalter.^    That  the  Oxford  and 

1  Zt.  I,  560-570.  2  cf.  Zt.  Rom.  Phil.  IV,  464. 

3  This  is  tlie  summary  of  Schumann's  results  (cf.  Litblt.  V,  392), 
though  the  idea  of  such  divisions  was  not  original  with  Schumann. 
He  gives  a  detailed  history  of  the  subject  on  the  first  page  of  his  arti- 
cle (for  title  see  above,  §  5). 


14  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Cambridge  psalters  are  not  the  work  of  the  sarae  translator 
has  been  definitely  proved.^ 

2.  The  edition  is  again  one  of  F.  Michel:  Le  Livre  des 
Psaumes,  Paris,  1876.^ 

3.  The  relations  of  the  two  Mss.,  the  Cambridge  and  the 
Paris,  are  discussed  by  Schumann  (pp.  4-6).  The  Ms.  at 
Cambridge  represents  the  labor  of  the  copyist,  Eadwin  of 
Canterbury,  and  for  this  reason  the  collection  is  at  times 
spoken  of  as  "  Ead win's  Psalter, ^^  again  as  the  "  Canterbury 
Psalter^  The  Paris  Ms.  is  later  than  the  Cambridge  and 
often  shows  more  correct  readings ;  both  copyists  doubtless 
had  the  original  before  them. 

4.  Our  text  is  older  than  the  Quatre  Livres  des  Rois,  and 
probably  falls  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II  (1154-1189).^  The 
date  usually  assigned  is  about  1160. 

5.  On  the  phonology  we  have  W.  Schumann :  Volcalismus 
und  Konsonantismus  des  Cambridger  Psalters,  Heilbronn, 
1883  {Franzos.  Studien,  IV,  4),  69  pp.  —  an  excellent  work.'' 
On  the  morphology  we  have  E.  Fichte :  Die  Flexion  im  Cam- 
bridger Psalter,  Halle,  1879,  96  pp.  This  is  to  be  controlled 
by  the  lengthy  revision  of  it  by  Schumann  at  the  end  of  the 
latter's  work  just  noted  (pp.  51-69). 

ARUNDEL  PSALTER 

1.  This  Psalter  may  be  so  called  from  the  name  of  the 
Ms.  (Arundel,  230)  in  which  it  is  found  in  the  British 
Museum.  It  is  the  only  known  interlinear  version  of  the 
Galilean  Psalter  and  is  peculiar  in  that  the  French  words  are 
placed  above  the  corresponding  Latin  ones  without  any  re- 
gard to  the  proper  order  of  the  French  sentence.     It  may 

1  Cf.  Zl  XI,  513.  2  cf.  Zt.  I,  568,  for  review. 

8  Cf .  Paris,  Vie  St.  Gilles,  p.  xxii ;  Such.  Gram.  p.  5 ;  Zt.  I,  569. 

4  Cf.  Eom.  XVI,  608  ;  Litblt.  V,  392.  There  is  a  dissertation  by 
K.  Dreyer  :  Der  Lautstand  im  Camb.  Psalt.,  Greifswald,  1882,  which 
I  have  not  seen. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALFXT  15 

represent  the  original  form  of  the  Gallican  Psalter;^  it  is 
truer  to  the  Latin  than  is  the  Oxford  Psalter. 

2.  Only  the  first  53  psalms  of  this  Ms.  have  been  pub- 
lished up  to  the  present,  —  these  by  Beyer,  in  Zt.  Pom.  Phil 
XI,  513-534 ;  XII,  1-56. 

3.  The  Ms.  spoken  of  above  is  the  only  one  mentioned. 

4.  The  Ms.  is  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  that  is  as  definite 
a  date  as  we  may  assign  for  the  present. 

5.  No  study  of  the  language  has  been  published.' 


2 


QUATRE   LIVRES   DES   ROTS 

1.  As  long  as  the  edition  mentioned  below  remains  the 
only  one,  we  seem  to  be  justified  in  placing  this  text  in  our 
list,  though  its  Anglo-Norman  provenance  has  been  called 
into  question.' 

2.  The  edition  referred  to  is  that  of  Le  Eoux  de  Lincy : 
Pes  Quatre  Licres  des  Pois,  Paris,  1841.  In  consulting  this 
text  one  should  note  the  revision  of  it  by  Ollerich  at  the 
end  of  Schlosser's  dissertation  (mentioned  below).  This 
revision  has  the  following  basis :  on  the  Ms.  of  the  Pois  are 
written  many  corrections  of  the  main  body  of  the  text ;  the 
corrections  were  used  inconsistently  and  indiscriminately  by 
De  Lincy.  Ollerich  studied  and  divided  them  into  four  sets." 
The  first  set  was  made  by  the  copyist   of  the   Ms.     The 

1  Cf.  Jhrsbrcht  Rom.  Phil.  I,  375. 

2  I  have  inserted  a  number  of  examples  from  this  text  (in  my  pho- 
nology and  morphology  of  Anglo-Norman),  some  of  which  are  very  in- 
teresting ;  great  stress  is  not  to  be  laid  on  them,  however,  until  the 
Ms.  shall  have  been  made  the  subject  of  further  study.  To  judge  from 
the  printed  edition,  a  number  of  peculiarities  in  the  Ms.  may  be 
due  to  a  very  indifferent  scribe.  [A  complete  edition  of  the  Psalter  is 
now  being  prepared.] 

«  Cf.  Zt.  I,  669  ;  Rom.  VII,  346,  XV,  641  ;  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram. 
Lang.  Rom.  I,  190,  196. 

*  He  calls  these  « « Correcturen  der  ersten  Hand,"  "  Correcturen  der 
zweiten  Hand,"  "  Correcturen  der  jungeren  Hand,"  and  "  Correcturen 
der  modernen  Hand." 


16  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

second  may  have  been  so  too ;  in  any  case  it  is  old  enough, 
to  be  taken  into  account;  the  others  are  worthless  for  a 
study  of  the  language. 

3.  De  Lincy's  edition  rests  on  the  only  Ms.  known  for  a 
long  time,  the  Mazarine,  of  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth 
century,  undoubtedly  by  an  Anglo-Norman  scribe ;  but  Berger 
and  Me3'er  have  directed  attention  to  other  Mss.,  and  the 
original  of  the  text  may  be  continental  and  not  Anglo- 
Norman.^ 

4.  The  Bois  is  to  be  placed  a  little  later  than  the  Cam- 
bridge Psalter,  probabl}^  about  1170.- 

5.  For  the  phonology  we  have  P.  Schlosser :  Die  Laut- 
verhdltnisse  der  Q.  L.  R.,  Bonn,  1886  (dissertation) ;  also  the 
first  few  pages  of  a  work  concerned  with  the  general  mor- 
phology of  the  Rois :  K,.  Plahn,  Les  Quatre  Livres  des  Reis, 
Gottingen,  1888  (diss.).  For  the  verbs  alone  we  have  K.  Mer- 
wart,  Die  Verhalflexion  in  den  Q.  L.  R.,  Wien,  1880,  19  pp. 
Schlosser's  work  is  based  on  Ollerich's  corrections  (referred 
to  above)  ;  Merwart's  has  the  advantage  of  giving  the  actual 
count  of  all  phenomena  treated.  I  have  not  seen  a  disserta- 
tion by  W.  Bartels :  Wortstellung  in  den  Q.  L.  R.,  Hannover, 
1886. 

ROLAND 

1.  This  text,  like  the  Alexis,  may  be  included  in  our 
bibliography ;  the  relatively  best  Ms.  of  it  is  an  Anglo- 
Norman  one. 

2.  The  standard  edition  of  the  Ms.  is  that  of  Stengel: 
Das  Altfranzosische  Rolandslied,  Heilbronn,  1878.  This 
edition  was  especially  valuable  because  it  was  a  diplomatic 
one,  and  because  accompanying  it  was  a  photographic  repro- 
duction of  the  entire  Ms.  (published  separately  from  the 

1  Cf.  Bom.  XVII,  125  ;  XXV,  180  ;  G.  Paris,  La  LiUerature  Nor- 
mande  avant  V Annexion^  Paris,  1899,  p.  30,  f.-n.  3. 

2  Cf.  Zt.  I,  509  ;  Schlosser,  ox.  p.  4,  f.-n.  1  ;  Such.  Beimpredigt 
(Bihl.  Norman.  I),  p.  xviil,  13. 


ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT  17 

text,  however).  Stengel's  work  on  this  edition  is  now  prac- 
tically incorporated  in  his  new  critical  edition  of  the  Roland 
(Vol.  I,  Leipzig,  1900),  the  basis  of  which  remains  the 
Oxford  Ms. 

3.  The  Ms.  was  adequately  described,  for  the  first  time, 
by  Stengel  in  the  introduction  to  the  edition  of  1878. 

4.  The  date  of  the  Oxford  Ms.  is  about  1170. 

5.  We  have  no  separate  study  on  the  subject  of  the 
general  Anglo-Norman  characteristics  of  the  Ms.  Kefer- 
ences  for  works  on  the  language  of  the  Eoland  are  given  by 
Seelmann  in  his  Bibliographie  des  Altfy-anz.  MolandsUedey 
Heilbronn,  1888,  p.  59  ss. 

BRAND AN 

1.  The  Anglo-Norman  version  of  the  legend  of  St. 
Brandan  is  the  oldest  one  known  in  a  vulgar  speech  of  the 
Middle  Ages.^ 

2.  The  poem  was  published  by  Suchier,  in  Momanische 
Studien,  I  (1875),  553-588,  under  the  title  "Brandan's 
Seefahrt.'' 

3.  This  edition  was  based  on  the  London  Ms.,  Cotton 
Yesp.,  of  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century.  It  and  other 
Mss.  are  commented  on  by  Suchier  in  his  Introduction.^ 

4.  Internal  evidence  shows  that  the  date  of  the  original 
composition  was  1121.^ 

5.  For  the  study  of  the  language  we  have  to  note  sev- 
eral works ;  for  the  phonology,  that  of  Vising,  Etude,  pp. 
67-91,  and  of  Hammer,  Zt.  Rom.  Phil.  IX,  75-115 ;  for  the 

1  Cf.  Such.  ed.  pp.  553  and  555  ;  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  479. 

2  Details  as  to  Mss.  and  editions  are  given  by  Vising,  l^tude,  pp. 
18-24.  Tliere  is  another  work  on  the  Mss.  of  the  Brandan  which  I 
have  not  seen  ;  namely,  that  of  M.  Wien :  D.  Verhdltniss  d.  Hss.  d. 
angloiiormann.  Brandanlegende,  Halle,  1886. 

3  Such.  ed.  p.  553 ;  Vising,  Etude,  p.  24.  Mall  alvs^ays  spoke  of 
the  Brandan  as  contemporaneous  with  the  Cumpoz  (cf.  pp.  80  and 
82).  See  a  note  by  Walberg,  Bestiaire,  p.  Ixxxi,  f.-n.,  and  cf.  Rom. 
XXIX,  590,  f.-n.  1. 

c 


18  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

morphology  that  of  Vising,  Etude,  pp.  06-100,  and  of 
Brekke,  Etude  sur  la  Flexion  dans  le  Vouage  de  Saint  Bran- 
dan,  Paris,  1884,  77  pp.  The  last  few  pages  of  Hammer's 
article  are  devoted  to  morphology,  and  Brekke  treats  the 
phonology  incidentall3\  Neither  one  of  these  two  seems 
entirely  authoritative;  Hammer's  effort  is  satisfactory  in 
its  treatment  of  versification,  but  otherwise  is  not  so  good 
as  that  of  Brekke.  Many  of  the  ideas  of  the  latter  are  dis- 
puted in  the  reviews,  which  must  be  taken  account  of.^  A 
resume  of  the  marked  linguistic  traits  of  the  Brandan  is 
given  by  Walberg  in  his  Bestiaire,  p.  Ixxxi.  I  have  not  seen 
a  work  by  E.  Birkenhoff :  Ueber  Metrum  u.  Beim  d.  altfranz. 
Brandan,  Marburg,  1884. 

GAIMAR 

1.  "  Geoffrey  Oaimar  was  a  distinguished  trouvere  of  the 
reign  of  Stephen  (1135-1154).  .  .  .  He  was  the  first  who 
published  an  Anglo-Norman  version  of  the  history  of  the 
British  kings  by  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth."  ^ 

2.  "  Lestorie  des  Engles  solum  la  translacion  Maistre  Geffrei 
Gaimar.'^  Edited  by  Hardy  and  Martin.  Two  volumes, 
liii  +  404  and  xlii  +  294.  London,  1888  (in  Rerum  Britan- 
nicarum  Medii  Aevi  Scriptores).  This  edition  has  been  un- 
favorably reviewed.^ 

3.  A  discussion  of  the  four  Mss.  of  the  Estorie  is  given 
by  Vising,  Etude,  pp.  25-28.  He  here  criticises  the  study 
of  the  Mss.  by  Kupferschmidt. 

4.  The  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Estorie  has  been 

1  Cf.  Bom.  XV,  628  ;  Zt.  IX,  158  ;  Litbtl  VI,  370. 

2  Wright,  Biogr.  Brit.  Lit..,  pp.  151-154,  speaks  of  Gaimar.  Cf. 
Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I,  661  ;  Litbtl.  IV,  311  ;  Roman.  Stud.  IV,  417. 
The  portion  of  Gaimar's  history  taken  from  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth 
is  lost.     Cf.  also  Grober,  Grtindriss,  II,  472. 

3  Cf.  Meyer  in  Bom.  XVIII,  314-318.  In  this  review,  as  well  as  in 
Vising,  ^tude,  p.  25,  will  be  found  references  to  other  editions  of  the 
Estorie,  in  whole  or  in  part. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  19 

established,  from  internal  evidence,  as  falling  between  1145 

and  1151.^ 

5.  On  the  language  the  most  careful  work  is  that  of 
Vising,  Etude,  pp.  80-91,  for  phonology  ;  pp.  100-103  for 
morphology.  Kupferschmidt,  in  the  course  of  an  investi- 
gation 2  into  the  relations  of  the  lay  of  Havelok  with  Gai- 
mar's  chronicle,  gives  seven  pages  (417-423)  of  remarks  on 
Gaimar's  language  and  versification. 


ADGAR 

1.  All  we  know  of  this  poet  is  the  little  that  remains  of 
what  he  tells  us ;  and  the  first  part  of  the  Ms.  containing  his 
work,  the  part  in  which  the  mediaeval  poet  generally  intro- 
duces himself,  is  lost.  His  name  is  Adgar,  though,  he  says, 
most  people  call  him  "  Willame."  Wright  ^  calls  him 
"  William  the  Trouvere."  The  legends  he  relates  are  not 
original  with  him,  but  translated  from  a  Latin  book  which 
he  says  he  took  from  the  library  of  St.  Paul's,  London.* 

2.  The  complete  edition  of  his  works  is  that  of  C.  Neu- 
haus:  Adgar's  Marienlecjenden,  Heilbronn,  1886  (Altfran- 
zosische  BibUothek,  IX).  Adgar's  legend  of  Theophile  (1080 
lines)  had  already  been  published  in  Zeit.  Rom.  Phil  I, 
531-540,  but,  apparently,  rather  carelessly.^ 

3.  The  legends  are  preserved  in  a  London  Ms.  fully 
described  by  Neuhaus  in  his  introduction. 

4.  The  date  of  this  Ms.  is  either  the  end  of  the  twelfth  or 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Kolfs  (see  below), 
from  a  comparison  of  the  language  of  Gaimar,  Fantosme, 
and  Adgar,  judged  that  Adgar  was  nearer  Gaimar,  that  is, 
about  1150. 

1  Cf.  Wright,  o,c.  p.  154  (Wright  specifies  between  1147  and  1151)  ; 
Vising,  ^tude,  p.  3.3  ;  Bom.  XVIII,  314. 

^  Roman.  Stud.  IV,  411-4-30;  cf.  Bom.  IX,  480. 
3  Biogr.  Brit.  Lit.  p.  4(34. 
*  On  Adgar,  cf.  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  050. 
5  Cf.  Zt.  II,  81  ;  Bom.  VII,  343. 


20  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

5.  Neuhaus  makes  no  study  of  the  language  in  his  edi- 
tion, since  that  had  already  been  done  quite  thoroughly  by 
W.  Rolfs  in  Bomanische  Studien,  I,  179-236.^ 

FANTOSME 

1.  Jordan  Fantosme  is  mentioned  in  several  places,  so 
that  we  are  sure  of  a  few  facts  of  his  life;  he  was  a  master 
in  the  schools  at  Winchester,  and  was  present  in  the  north 
of  England  when  that  district  was  invaded  by  the  Scots 
under  William  the  Lion  in  1173  and  1174.  It  was  this  in- 
vasion which  he  afterward  described  in  an  Anglo-Norman 
Chronique  in  verse.^ 

2.  The  Chronique  was  published  by  F.  Michel,  as  an  ap- 
pendix (pp.  531-613)  to  Vol.  Ill  of  the  Chronique  des  Dues 
de  Normandie,  Paris,  1844.  This  was  the  second  time  that 
Michel  published  the  poem,  the  first  being  in  1839  for  the 
Surtees  Society  of  Durham.^  The  next  edition  was  that 
by  Howlett  *  (Rolls  Series,  1886).  A  new  edition  by  Barbier 
is  announced  in  JRom.  XXX,  468. 

3.  The  two  Mss.  of  the  Chronique,  one  of  Durham  and 
one  of  Lincoln,  both  of  the  thirteenth  century,  are  described 
and  compared  by  Vising.^ 

4.  The  date  is  determined,  from  internal  evidence,  to  have 
been  between  1174  and  1183.^ 

5.  For  Fantosme's  language  we  have  to  refer  to  Vising's 
Etude,  pp.  91-95  for  the  phonology,  pp.  103-104  for  the 
morphology.^ 

1  See  review  by  Vising,  Lithlt.  IV,  180. 

2  Wright,  Biogr.  Brit.  Lit.  p.  22L  Cf.  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1, 
638  (in  the  Begister,  p.  1270,  this  reference  is  incorrectly  given  as 
636).  8  Cf.  Chron.  Ill,  613. 

4  Not  Haslitt,  as  cited  in  Litblt.  XIII,  416.       ^  :^tnde,  pp.  34-38. 

6  Cf.  Vising,  I^tude,  pp.  41,  42  ;  Lithlt.  Ill,  17,  IV,  31L 

7  On  the  metre  of  the  Chronique  there  is  a  dissertation  by  H.  Rose 
in  Boman.  Stud.  V,  2,  301-382  (cf.  Lithlt.  Ill,  352). 


OFTHi- 

UNIVERSi  I  t 

OF 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  21 


ANGIER 


1.  In  the  translation  from  Latin  into  Anglo-Norman  of 
the  Life  and  of  the  Dialogues  of  Gregory  the  Great  we  have 
one  of  the  most  valuable  aids  to  the  study  of  our  dialect ; 
this  is  because  the  translator  gives  his  name,  then  the  place 
and  time  of  the  manuscript,  which  he  writes  himself,  and 
he  shows  care  and  correctness  rarely  to  be  found  among 
Anglo-Norman  scribes.  We  owe  our  knowledge  of  the  work 
of  this  translator  —  a  certain  Frere  Angier  of  Sainte  Fri- 
deswide  —  to  P.  Meyer,  who  was  the  first  ever  to  mention 
him. 

2.  Meyer  edited  242  verses  of  the  Dialogues  in  his  Eecneil, 
pp.  340-343.  Later,  in  Rom.  XII,  145-208,  he  published 
the  Vie  de  Saint  Gregoire  le  Grand  in  full  (2954  lines)  with 
notes  on  the  Ms.,  author,  and  language,  and  a  vocabulary. 
Selections  consisting  of  the  Prologues  of  the  Dialogues,  a 
prayer  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  the  Trinity  are  given  on 
pages  5-30  of  the  Dissertation  of  Timothy  Cloran:  The  Dia- 
logues of  Gregory  the  Great,  Strassburg,  1901.^  Cloran  prom- 
ises a  complete  edition  of  the  Dialogues,  which  are  much 
longer  then  the  Vita,  since  they  contain  19,367  verses. 

3.  4.  The  Ms.  containing  Angler's  translations  is  in  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris.  Meyer,  while  not  perfectly 
sure,  considers  it  probable,  and  gives  good  reasons  for  his 
opinion,  that  we  have  in  this  Ms.  Angler's  autograph  copy. 
Meyer's  idea  is  that  Angier  first  made  a  sketch  ("  brouillon," 
"  minute ")  of  his  translation  of  the  Dialogues,  then  copied 
them  in  full  and  dated  them  November  29,  1212.  About  a 
year  and  a  half  later  he  added  the  Vie,  which  he  finished 
April  30,  1214.  There  is  no  paleographic  argument  against 
attributing  the  Ms.  to  these  years ;  the  writing  is  that  of  the 
first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

5.   Meyer  gives  an  extended  study  of  the  phonology  and 

1  For  corrections  of  details  in  Cloran's  work  see  Bom.  XXXI,  174  ; 
Mod.  Lang.  Notes,  XVI,  241  (Sheldon). 


22  MANUAL  OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

morpholog}^  of  the  Vie  in  his  edition,  pp.  193-201.  Cloran 
studies  the  same  in  the  Dialogues,  pp.  40-53,  following 
Meyer  in  the  main,  though  giving  some  supplementary  de- 
tails (cf.  also  p.  4). 

CHARDRI 

1.  About  all  we  know  of  this  poet  is  his  name,  and  also 
that  he  lived  in  England.  The  three  poems  of  his  which 
we  have  are  of  some  literary  importance  on  account  of  the 
legends  which  they  embody.^  The  Petit  Plet  is  particularly 
interesting.^ 

2.  John  Koch,  Chardry^s  Josapliaz,  Set  Dormanz  und  Petit 
Plet,  Heilbronn,  1879  (Altfranz.  Bibl.  I).  This  edition  was 
much  criticised  by  Suchier^  and  Mussafia,'*  and  is  hardly 
what  might  be  termed  a  definitive  edition.  Koch  spells  the 
name  "  Chardry,"  which  is  against  the  authority  of  the  Mss. 

3.  The  Mss.  are  three,  the  oldest  in  the  British  Museum 
and  of  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century ;  this  one 
served  as  the  basis  of  Koch's  text;  the  second  Ms.  is  in 
Oxford,  and  of  the  middle  or  else  second  half  of  the  thir- 
teenth century ;  the  third  is  in  the  Vatican  and  probably 
the  work  of  two  scribes,  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
centuries.  The  first  two  Mss.  mentioned  contain  all  three 
poems,  the  last  only  the  Petit  Plet. 

4.  Since  the  London  Ms.  was  written  before  1216,  the 
original  must  have  been  composed  in  the  course  of  the 
twelfth  century.^ 

5.  The  language  is  studied  by  Koch,  pp.  xxv-xl,  and  these 
pages  are  carefully  examined  by  Mussafia  in  his  review.*^ 

1  In  addition  to  Koch's  study  of  these,  there  is  a  dissertation  hj  A. 
Reinbrecht,  Die  Legende  von  den  sieben  Schlafern  und  der  Anglo- 
Normannische  Dichter  Chardri,  Gottingen,  1880.  Cf.  Koch,  Litblt. 
II,  290  ;  Such.  ih.  30:3,  and  Varnhagen,  Zt.  V,  162.  One  chapter  of 
Reinbrecht's  dissertation  is  devoted  to  the  biography  of  Chardri,  but 
offers  nothing  new.     Cf.  also  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  643,  609. 

2  Cf.  Horn.  IX,  171.  3  Lithlt.  II,  359.  *  Zt.  Ill,  591. 
6  Cf.  Koch,  I.e.  XL VI ;  Suchier,  I.e.  p.  361.  6  pp.  502-597. 


ANGLO-NORMAN    DIALECT  23 

GUILLAUME    UE   BERNEVILLE 

1.  A  commune  of  the  Manche  bears  the  name  of  Berneville, 
and  a  text  of  the  thirteenth  century  presents  the  name  under 
the  Latin  form  Bernevilla.  The  family  of  our  poet  prob- 
ably moved  from  tliere  to  England,  as  did  that  of  Philippe 
from  Than.  Certain  contrarieties  in  the  language  of  Guil- 
laume  are  to  be  reconciled  only  when  we  consider  him  an 
Anglo-Norman  and  not  a  continental  Norman.  His  languacre 
is  superior  to  that  of  Fantosme,  for  example,  and  he  holds 
honorable  rank  beside  Philippe,  Gaimar,  or  the  author  of 
the  Brandan} 

2.  La  Vie  de  Saint  Gilles,  par  Guillaume  de  Berneville, 
poeme  public  par  G.  Paris  et  A.  Bos,  Paris,  1881  (Societe 
des  Anciens  Textes  Frangais).^ 

3.  The  one  Ms.  of  the  poem  is  that  of  the  Laurentian 
library  in  Florence ;  it  was,  without  any  doubt,  written  in 
England,  because  it  shows  all  the  characteristics  of  Anglo- 
Norman  writing  of  the  thirteenth  century.^ 

4.  The  date  of  this  Ms.  is  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth 
century.**  The  original  is  older :  from  evidence  based  on  the 
use  of  the  names  of  the  three  Magi  (Melchior,  Gaspar,  and 
Balthasar),  which  were  not  introduced  into  the  West  till 
after  the  pretended  discovery  of  their  bodies  in  Milan  in 
1158,  we  cannot  date  the  original  earlier  than  about  1170. 
The  study  of  the  grammatical  forms,  too,  shows  that  the  Vie 
was  written  after  1150.^ 

5.  The  language  is  studied  at  length,  pp.  xxvii-xxxiv ; 
the  contrariety  already  referred  to  is  considered,  pp.  xvii- 
xxi.  It  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  style  and  the  pho- 
netics (with  the  exception  of  one  trait,  the  fall  of  pretonic 

1  Cf.  the  edition,  pp.  xv,  xxi,  and  xxxv ;  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I, 
561  ;  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  642. 

2  In  the  use  of  this  text  account  should  be  taken  of  the  important 
corrections  of  Introduction,  Text,  and  Glossary  by  Mussafia,  Rom.  XI, 
594-598.        8  Ed,  p^  x.vii.        *  Ed.  p.  xiv.        ^  Ed,  pp,  ^xv  and  xxvii. 


24  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

e  in  hiatus:  jeu>ju)    are   archaic,  while    the   declension 
approaches  very  nearly  the  later  Anglo-Norman  inflection. 

MODWENNE 

1,  2.  Suchier  published  112  verses  of  the  life  of  St. 
Modwenne  in  his  Vie  cle  St.  Auban,  pp.  54-58.  It  was 
taken  from  a  Latin  original  of  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth 
century,  for  the  lack  of  a  manuscript  copy  of  which  Suchier 
postponed  the  complete  edition  of  the  Anglo-Norman  poem. 

3.  The  verses  occur  in  an  Oxford  Ms. 

4.  The  date  of  the  Ms.  is  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth 

century.^ 

5.  Suchier  cites  examples  from  this  text  in  his  Auhaiiy 
but  there  is  no  detailed  study  of  the  forms. 

ST,   THOMAS 

1.  The  long  conflict  between  Thomas  Becket  and 
Henry  II,  and,  more  particularly,  Becket's  assassination 
and  consequent  repute  as  a  martyr,  furnished  material  for 
many  "  Vies "  of  the  latter,  both  in  Latin  and  in  French. 
The  oldest,  and  most  important,  French  life  of  Thomas  is 
that  of  Gamier  de  Pont  Sainte-Maxence,  composed  between 
1174  and  1176.  Of  this  "Life"  there  are  six  Mss.,  all 
executed  in  England;  it  has  been  published  twice, --by 
Bekker,  in  1838,  and  by  Hippeau,  in  1859.  A  second  life 
of  Thomas  is  by  a  certain  frere  Benet,  of  probably  the  first 
quarter  of  the  thirteenth  century ,2  of  which  several  Mss. 
exist.  This  is  the  biography  published  by  F.  Michel  in 
his  Chronique  des  Dues  de  Normandie,  III,  461-509  (same 
volume   as    that  containing  the  Chronique   of    Fantosme). 

1  Cf.  Auhan,  pp.  4  and  33,  and  the  general  remarks  in  Grober, 
Griindriss,  II,  1,  647. 

2  According  to  Meyer,  St.  TJiomas,  p.  ii,  from  whom  all  the  above 
information  is  derived.  Paris  (Vie  St.  Gilles,  p.  xxii)  gives  the  date 
as  about  1172.     Cf.  also  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  645. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  25 

Michel  used  a  Ms.  (and  a  poor  one)  of  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale,  and  gives  (pp.  615-630)  variants  from  a  British 
Museum  Ms. 

2.  The  edition  of  a  life  of  Thomas  most  useful  for  our 
purposes  is  a  third  one,  as  given  in  the  volume  of  P.  Meyer : 
Fragments  cVune  Vie  de  Saint  TJiomas  de  Cantorberyf  Paris, 
1885  (Soc.  Anc.  Textes  Fr.). 

3.  These  fragments  are  from  a  Ms.  in  Courtrai  consisting 
of  four  leaves ;  on  each  side  of  each  leaf  is  a  miniature  and 
a  fragment  (all  photographed  and  printed  in  the  edition). 

4.  The  writing  of  the  Ms.  indicates  that  it  is  of  a  date 
not  later  than  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century.  The 
original  may  be  placed  betvt^een  1198  and  the  time  of  the 
Ms.,  it  may  be  the  year  1220.     The  author  is  unknown.^ 

5.  Meyer  mentions  (pp.  xxviii-xxxi)  the  characteristics 
of  the  text,  dwelling  particularly  upon  the  point  of  the 
elision  of  e  before  a  vowel. 

ADAM 

1.  This  is  a  very  important  text  in  connection  with  the 
history  of  the  Mysteres.^ 

2.  Karl  Grass  :  Das  Adamsspiel,  Halle,  1891  {Romanische 
Bibliothek,  VI).  This  edition  called  forth  several  impor- 
tant reviews.^  The  text  had  already  been  published  twice. 
Grass  edits,  as  an  appendix  (p.  53),  the  "  Quinze  Signes  '^ 
(360  lines),  which  follow  directly  upon  the  Adayn  in  the 
Ms.,  but  really  have  no  connection  otherwise  with  it,  and 
do  not  belong  to  the  Anglo-Norman  dialect.'* 

3.  4.  The  single  Ms.,  that  of  Tours,  gave  rise  to  a  discus- 
sion as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  written  at  two  different 
epochs.     Porster  holds  to  this  idea.     He  even  assigns  the 

1  Meyer  ed.  pp.  iil,  v,  and  xxvii. 

2  Cf.  Grober,  Grundriss,  II,  1,  712. 

3  Notably  those  of  Tobler,  Litblt.  XII,  341  ;  Such.  G'otting.  Gelehrt. 
Anzeig.  1891,  p.  685,  and  Mussafia,  Zeit.  Oestr.  Gymn.  XL VI,  C7. 

^  Cf.  Horn.  XXI,  280,  and  Jhrsbrcht.  Rom.  Phil  II,  1,  250. 


26  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

first  part,  that  in  wMcli  our  poem  occurs,  to  the  twelfth 
century.^  This  idea  is  not  universally  accepted,  and  the 
middle  of   the  thirteenth  century  seems  a  safer  date. 

5.  Grass  offers  a  long  study  (pp.  111-142)  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  poem,  comparing  it  with  that  of  the  Oxford 
and  Cambridge  Psalters  and  the  Qaatre  Livres  des  Rois. 
Care  must  be  exercised  in  consulting  these  pages,  since, 
curiously  enough,  Grass  apparently  takes  no  notice  of  the 
ten  pages  (69-78)  of  Forster's  corrections  of  his  readings. 

BEVIS   OF   HAMPTON 

1,  2.  Der  Anglonormannische  Boeve  de  Haumtone,  zum  er- 
sten  male  herausgegeben  von  Albert  Stimming,  Halle,  1899 
{Bibliotheca  Normannica,  VII).  Suchier  says  (p.  cxcv  of 
the  Introduction)  that  this  edition  is  made  with  a  "  Griind- 
lichkeit "  and  "  Sachkenntniss "  not  to  be  noted  in  any 
other  Anglo-Norman  text. 

3.  The  Mss.,  fully  described  by  Stimming,  pp.  iii-viii, 
are  two,  both  in  Paris,  one  of  the  thirteenth  and  one  of  the 
fourteenth  century. 

4.  The  time  of  the  original  composition,  if  we  judge  from 
the  state  of  the  language,  must  have  been  the  first  half  of 
the  thirteenth  century.^ 

5.  The  language  is  treated  in  the  Introduction  (pp.  viii- 
xxxii)  and  again  in  the  Appendix  (pp.  171-240).  The  Ap- 
pendix is  a  mine  of  information  on  Anglo-Norman  phonology 
in  generaL 

A  MAD  AS   AND   YDOINE 

1.  The  poem  of  this  subject  was  very  popular  in  England,^ 
and  the  primitive  form  of  it  is  the  Anglo-Norman  redaction.^ 

1  A  description  of  this  Ms,  had  already  been  given,  Bom.  II,  91-95. 
Delisle  here  says  he  does  not  think  the  Ms.  is  to  be  placed  before  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

2  For  general  remarks  on  Boeve,  of.  Grober,  Gnindriss,  II,  1,  572. 
8  Cf.  Bom.  XVIII,  627,  f.-n.  *  Of.  Bom.  XXX,  633. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  27 

2.  Andresen  edited  two  fragments  of  the  poem,  the  one 
of  140,  the  other  of  146  lines,  in  Zi.  Mom.  Phil.  XIII,  84-97. 

3.  These  fragments  he  found  on  two  pages  of  Ms.  in  tlie 
Gottingen  library.  There  is  another  Ms.  (Picard  ?)  in 
Paris,  of  the  date  1288,  edited  by  Hippeau :  Amadas  et 
Ydoiyie,  Po^me  cV Aventures,  Paris,  1863.  (This  edition  1 
have  not  seen.) 

4.  Andresen  supposes  his  Ms.  to  be  of  the  first  half  of 
the  thirteenth  century.^  Meyer,  in  his  review,-  questions  so 
early  a  date,  but  goes  into  no  detail  to  disprove  it. 

5.  The  editor  makes  a  note  (pp.  85-87)  of  the  Anglo- 
Norman  peculiarities  of  his  text. 

CHEVALIER,    DAME   ET   CLERC 

1,  2.  This  fabliau,  of  586  verses,  was  edited  by  Meyer  in 
Rom.  I,  69-87,  under  the  title  "  Romanz  de  un  Chivaler  et  de 
sa  Dame  e  de  un  Clerk.^^ 

S,  4.  The  Ms.  is  in  Cambridge  and  was  written  in  England 
toward  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

5.    There  is  no  detailed  study  of  the  language. 

ST.   AUBAN 

1.  The  poem  of  this  name  treats  of  the  life  of  the  first 
martyr  in  England;  in  his  honor  t^ie  abbey  of  St.  Auban 
was  named,  and  there,  in  the  thirteenth  century  many  Mss. 
were  written ;  our  present  one,  along  with  others,  has  been 
attributed  to  Matthew^  Paris,  a  celebrity  of  the  abbey  (died 
1259).  The  editor  of  the  poem  (Atkinson)  was  of  this 
opinion,  doubtless  an  incorrect  one.^ 

2.  The  first  edition  of  the  poem  was  that  of  E.  Atkinson, 
Vie  de  Seint  Auban,  London,  1876.  Many  emendations  of 
his  text  were  made  by  reviewers.'* 

1  Cf.  Zt.  XXI,  576.  2  jiom.  XVIII,  626. 

3  Cf.  Suchier,  Auban,  pp.  2  and  3  ;  Meyer,  Bom.  XV,  146  ;  Grober, 
Gi'undriss,  II,  1,  647. 

*  A  list  of  these  reviews  is  given  by  Uhlemann,  lioman.  Stud.  IV,  623. 


28  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

3,  4.  The  Ms.  is  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  and  of  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century.  The  original  is  of  about 
the  same  date.^ 

5.  On  the  language  of  the  poem  we  have  two  works. 
First,  the  very  important  one  of  Suchier  :  XJeher  die  Mat- 
tliaeus  Paris  ziigeschriebene  Vie  de  Seint  Auban,  Halle,  1876. 
This  little  volume  developed  out  of  what  Suchier  intended 
to  be  a  review  of  Atkinson's  edition.  It  deals  with  the 
authorship  of  the  Auban,  Anglo-Norman  versification,^  and 
some  difficult  points  of  Anglo-Norman  phonetics.  The 
other  work  is  the  rather  prolix  one  of  Uhlemann :  Ueber 
die  Vie  de  Seint  Auban  in  Beziig  auf  Quelle,  Lautverhciltnisse 
und  Flexion^  in  Roinan.  Stud.  IV,  543-626.^ 

SAKDENAI 

1,  2.  This  little  poem  of  452  lines  was  published  by  G. 
Eaynaud  in  Rom.  XI,  531-537,  under  the  title  [Le  Miracle 
de  Sain]te  Marie  de  Sard[enai]. 

3.  There  are  four  Mss.  of  the  poem.  The  one  from  which 
Raynaud  published  his  text  was  of  Tours,  the  same  as  that 
containing  the  Mysth^e  d^Adam}  Raynaud  thought  that  the 
original  poem  was  Picard,  though  the  scribe  had  evidently 
had  access  to  a  model  executed  in  England  ;  later,  our  editor 
made  the  acquaintance  of  two  other  Mss.  (of  London  and 
Oxford),  which  were  by  Anglo-Norman  scribes,  and  in 
Rom.  XIV,  88-93,  he  adds  variant  readings  from  these 
two  Mss.  Later  still  (Rom.  XV,  354)  Mej^er  describes  a 
Ms.  of   Cambridge   containing   the  Miracle   and  expresses 

1  Cf.  Rom.  V,  384. 

2  On  this  point,  cf.  the  remarks  of  Meyer  in  Bom.  XV,  146. 

3  Cf.  the  reviews  in  Zt.  VI,  485  ;  Lithlt.  Ill,  15. 

*  Cf.  p.  25.  Grass,  p.  vi,  mentions  the  Miracle  in  enumerating  the 
contents  of  this  Ms.  ;  but  speaks  of  it  as  inedited,  although  Vol.  XI  of 
the  Romania  was  in  existence  nine  years  before  the  date  of  Grass's 
publication. 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  29 

his  assurance  that  England  was  the  original  place  of  the 
composition.^ 

4.  The  date  of  the  Tours  Ms.  is  given  as  the  middle  of 
the  thirteenth  century ;  ^  that  of  London,  the  thirteenth  ;  ^ 
that  of  Oxford  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth ;  ^  the  date  of 
the  Cambridge  Ms.  is  not  mentioned. 

5.  Raynaud  makes  a  few  remarks  on  the  language  in  Rom. 
XI,  530,  and  XIV,  87. 

ASPREMONT 

1.  Many  manuscripts  of  this  important  chansoyi  de  geste 
were  written  in  England.  In  fact,  the  only  complete  manu- 
scripts of  it  seem  to  have  been  executed  either  in  England 
or  in  Italy. ^ 

2.  The  text  we  refer  to  here  is  that  edited  by  Langlois  in 
Horn.  XII,  446-458  (preceded  by  a  fragment  of  Otiyiel  from 
the  same  Ms.).  The  continuation  of  this  Aspremoyit  is  given 
by  Meyer,  Rom.  XIX,  205-216. 

3.  The  Ms.  used  by  Langlois  is  of  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale,  though  originally  from  the  archives  of  Lozere. 
Curiously  enough,  the  fragment  edited  by  Meyer,  and  now 
in  Clermont,  formerly  belonged  to  and  was  a  part  of  the 
Lozere  Ms.^ 

4.  The  date  of  this  Ms.  is  about  the  middle  of  the  thir- 
teenth century.^ 

1  Raynaud,  Bom.  XIV,  87,  corrects  his  own  mistake  with  regard  to 
li  eule  being  Picard.  (He  had  supposed  that  eule  was  feminine.) 
There  are,  however,  several  phenomena  to  be  noted  in  the  Tours  Ms. 
he  published  which  are  not  usually  associated  with  Anglo-Norman,  and 
which  may  be  with  Picard.  For  example,  we  may  cite  viaut  (volet) 
308,  doiipeiiple,  21,  do  Temple,  363.  The  Oxford  Ms.  shows  volt,  but 
neither  it  nor  the  London  Ms.  offers  a  variant  for  the  doii.  The  Tours 
Ms.  has  iaiis  {oculum)  constantly  where  the  London  and  Oxford  Mss. 
present  oilz.  2  j^^m.  XI,  519.  ^  jjom.  XIV,  82. 

4  Bom.  XIX,  201 ;  here  a  list  of  the  Mss.  is  given  by  Meyer  ;  of  these, 
five  were  from  England.  ^  Rom.  XIX,  204. 

6  Rom.  XII,  434,  and  XIX,  203.  [There  are  two  foot-notes  numbered 
"3  "  on  this  page.] 


30  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DL\LECTS 

5.  Laiiglois  calls  attention  (p.  431)  to  a  few  peculiarities 
of  the  language  and  orthography,  particularly  the  use  of 
accent  marks  in  the  Ms. 

MADELEINE 

1.  This  little  fragment  of  seventy-eight  lines  has  an 
interesting  bit  of  literary  history  connected  with  it;  it  was 
announced  by  its  first  editor,  Kauffer,  to  be  a  composition 
of  E-ichard  the  Lion-hearted  and  to  vindicate  for  the  French 
the  right  to  the  title  of  originators  of  the  "  terzine."  This 
and  other  mistakes  of  Kauffer  were  soon  corrected.^  The 
fragment  records  part  of  a  legend  of  St.  Madeleine. 

2.  The  text  is  published  by  Suchier  (who  profited  by 
Forster's  emendations  of  the  edition  of  Kauffer)  in  Zi,  Rom. 
Phil  IV,  362-363. 

3.  The  Ms.  is  of  the  town  library  of  Treves. 

4.  The  poet  cannot  be  placed  before  the  beginning  of  the 
thirteenth  century.  The  writing  of  the  Ms.  seems  that  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  same  century. 

5.  Schmidt,  Roman.  Stud.  IV,  540,  notes  four  characteris- 
tics of  the  language:  the  rhyming  of  e  :  ie\  -ebat  ;  -abat; 
q  :  u  (luis  :  pluis  from  locos,  plus)  ;  ai  :  e. 

FABLIAU  DU   H^RON 

1.  This  piece,  of  172  lines,  is  important  because  it  offers, 
in  all  probability,  one  of  the  few  instances  of  fabliaux 
of  English  origin. 

2.  It  is  edited  by  Meyer  in  Rom.  XXVI,  88-91:  Le 
Fabliau  du  Heron  ou  de  la  Fille  mal  gardee. 

3.  This  fabliaa  occurs  in  the  same  IMs.  as  the  Aspremont 
fragment  published  by  Meyer  (cf.  p.  29),  and  follows 
directly  upon  it. 

4.  The  copy  of  the  fabliau  is  not,  however,  by  the  same 
hand  that  wrote  the  Aspremont,  but  by  one  apparently  a 

1  For  the  whole  story,  cf.  Bom.  IX,  49 L 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  31 

little  later  —  Meyer  suggests  the  last  years  of  the  thirteenth 
century. 

5.  The  language,  too,  shows  some  variations  from  that  of 
Aspremont,  and  is  considered  by  Meyer  (p.  88). 

LE   DONNEI   DES   AMANTS 

1.  This  is  an  anonymous  poem  that  cannot  be  attributed 
to  any  of  our  well-known  Anglo-Norman  poets,  although  the 
author  resembles  Huon  de  Rotelande  and  Chardri  in  several 
points.  Indeed,  the  latter  seems  to  have  known  the  Donnei, 
and  to  have  developed  an  idea  from  it  in  his  Petit  Plet. 
The  word  "donnei"  is  derived  from  Provencal  domnei, 
which  was  formed  from  domneiar,  a  term  meaning  to  "  pay 
court  to  the  ladies."  In  our  poem,  and  generally,  donnei 
indicates  an  amorous  conversation.^ 

2.  The  poem  and  a  study  of  it  were  published  by  Paris  in 
Rom.  XXV,  497-541  (the  text  itself,  of  1244  lines,  occupies 
pp.  500-522). 

3.  The  Ms.  is  from  the  Phillipps  library,  Cheltenham, 
and  was  written  at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  or  beginning 
of  the  fourteenth  century.^ 

4.  Paris  thinks  the  original  was  written  during  the  last 
years  of  the  twelfth  century.-^ 

5.  The  poem  reveals  several  characteristic  Anglo-Norman 
traits,  such  as  lenz  =  laenz;  aver:  aler;  joe  =  ego,  etc."* 

PilLERINAGE   DE   CHARLEMAGNE 

1.  This  text  is  included  in  ray  list,  as  are  the  Poland,  and 
the  Alexis,  because  of  the  Anglo-Norman  Ms.  of  it,  which, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  two  monuments  cited,  is  easily  acces- 

1  Eom.  XXV,  522  and  634.  The  Donnei  appears  after  Chardri  in 
my  list  because  of  the  difference  in  the  dates  of  the  Mss.  of  the  two. 

2  Cf.  pp.  497-500. 

3  Cf.  p.  5.34  ;  he  is  sustained  in  this  by  Vising,  Jhrsbrcht.  Bom.  Phil. 
IV,  1,  297,  though  Grober,  Zt.  XXI,  575,  prefers  the  first  quarter  of  the 
thirteenth.  *  pp.  531-532,  and  cf.  Vising,  Jhrsbrcht.  IV,  1,  298. 


32  MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

sible  to  the  student,  since  it  is  reproduced  in  the  critical 
edition  of  the  poem. 

2.  This  edition  is  that  of  E.  Koschwitz,  Karls  des  Grossen 
Relse  nach  Jerusalem  und  Constantinopely  Leipzig,  1900. 
Fourth  ed.  (Altfrayiz.  Bibl.  II). 

3.  The  Anglo-Norman  Ms.  (of  the  British  Museum),  the 
only  one  known  to  contain  the  Pderinage,  was  lost  in  1879. 
Before  this  date,  however,  Koch  had  photographed  it,  and 
Wlilcker  and  Nicoi  had  collated  Michel's  edition  (the  first) 
of  the  poem  (1836)  founded  on  this  Ms.  Koschwitz  prints 
Koch's  facsimile  in  its  entirety  opposite  the  critical  text, 
availing  himself  of  variants  from  the  two  collations  re- 
ferred to. 

4.  The  Ms.,  a  faulty  one,  by  a  scribe  but  ill  acquainted 
with  French,  belongs  to  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  or  the 
beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

5.  The  language  of  this  text  was  made  the  subject  of  an 
especial  study  by  Koschwitz  in  his  book,  Ueberlieferung  und 
Sprache  der  Chaiison  du  Voyage  de  Charlemagne,  Heilbronn, 
1876.  Here  we  may  find  many  points  of  interest  for  the 
student  of  Anglo-Norman. 

MISCELLANEOUS   POEMS 

1,  2.  I  refer  here  to  the  scattered  pieces  published  by 
Meyer,  Rom.  IV,  370-397,  with  the  title  :  Melanges  de  Poesie 
Anglo-Normande. 

3,  4.  The  names  of  the  pieces,  Mss.,  and  dates  are  the 
following :  — 

a  (p.  370).  Missus  Gabriel;  British  Museum  Ms.  of  end 
of  thirteenth  century.  Here  we  may  include  the  "  Chanson 
a  hoire  "  from  the  same  Ms.,  published  by  Paris,  Rom.  XXI, 
260.  It  is  worth  noting  that  this  was  the  Ms.  (now  lost) 
containing  the  PUerinage  (cf.  above). 

h  (p.  373).  Pri^re;  Trinity  College  Ms.,  of  the  end  of  the 
thirteenth  century. 


ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT  33 

c  (p.  374).  Chanson;  Bodleian  Library,  of  the  second  half 
of  the  thirteenth  century. 

d  (p.  385).  Etats  du  Monde;  Cambridge  Ms.,  middle  of  the 
thirteenth  century.  This  is  a  most  interesting  little  poem 
from  several  points  of  view.  Meyer  devotes  ten  pages  to 
a  consideration  of  it. 

e  (p.  395).    Plainte;   British  Museum,  end  of  thirteenth 

century. 

Of  the  fourteenth  century  we  have :  — 

/  (p.  375).    Three  Chansons  from  a  Cambridge  Ms. 

g  (p.  383).   Definition  de  V Amour  from  a  Bodleian  Ms.    In 

addition,  several   pieces  are  printed  whose  dates  are  not 

indicated  (pp.  372,  380,  and  384). 

BIBLE   TRANSLATION 

1,  2.  A  fragment  of  a  translation  into  verse  is  given  by 
Bonnardot,  Bom.  XVI,  177-213.      This  fragment  consists 

of  1013  verses. 

3,  4.  The  editor  used  a  Ms.  of  Treves,  appending  variants 
from  two  other  Mss.  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  all  three 
being  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and  all  written  in  England.^ 
Meyer,  in  a  note  at  the  end  of  Bonnardot's  article  (p.  212), 
mentions  two  other  Mss.  (of  Oxford  and  Cheltenham)  con- 
taining the  translation. 

APOCALYPSE 

1.  This  text  is  important  in  several  ways:  similar  versions 
of  the  Apocalypse  were  very  popular ;  of  the  present  one  in 
verse  there  are  seven  Mss. ;  of  that  in  prose  ^  we  know  of  six- 
teen; again,  it  represents  a  change  in  taste  of  the  public  of 
the  time  (end  of  thirteenth  century)  in  so  far  as  this  public  no 
longer  cared  for  imaginative  works  in  themselves,  but  rather 

1  The  language,  however,  is  of   a  purity  that  indicates  a  much 
earlier  date,  or  else  that  the  copyist  had  before  him  an  origmal  from 

the  continent. 

2  Published  by  Meyer  and  Delisle :  r Apocalypse  en  Fran<iais  au 

XIII^  Steele,  Paris,  1901  {Anc.  Tex.  Fr.). 


34  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FKENCH   DIALECTS. 

for  vulgarizations  of  what  the  clerks  read  in  Latin ;  finally, 
it  is  typical  of  the  mediocre  poetical  works  which  mark  the 
close  of  the  Anglo-Norman  period,  —  productions  incorrect 
in  language  and  versification ;  like  those  of  William  Wad- 
dington,  Peter  Langtoft,  and  the  author  of  Hugo  of  Lincoln} 

2.  The  edition  here  referred  to  is  that  of  Meyer :  Version 
Anglo- Nor mande  en  Vers  de  VAjyocalypse,  Rom.  XXV,  174-257 
(texts  of  355  and  1431  lines,  pp.  187-253). 

3.  The  seven  Mss.  are  described  and  classified  (pp.  175- 
182)  in  three  families.  Meyer  publishes  the  representatives 
of  two  of  these  groups  in  full,  giving  selections  from  the 
other  Mss.2 

4.  The  dates  of  the  Mss.  vary  from  the  beginning  to  the 
middle  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  date  of  the  original 
was  in  the  thirteenth  century.^ 

5.  Meyer,  pp.  255-256,  speaks  of  peculiarities  of  the 
language. 

ST.   PAUL 

1.  The  visit  of  St.  Paul  to  hell,  under  the  conduct  of  St. 
Michael,  is  described  in  Anglo-Norman  versions  as  it  is  in 
practically  all  other  mediaeval  languages. 

2.  The  version  we  note  is  that  edited  by  Meyer  in 
Rom.  XXIV,  357-375:  La  Descente  de  Saint  Paul  en  Enfer 
(text  of  282  lines,  pp.  365-375). 

3.  This  version  is  in  a  single  Ms.,  that  of  Toulouse, 
which  contained  the  Apocalypse  too. 

4.  The  date  of  the  Ms.  is  about  tlic  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century,  and  the  composition  of  the  poem  was  doubt- 
less but  little  previous  to  that  time. 

5.  Several  peculiarities  of  the  language  are  mentioned  by 
Meyer  (p.  362). 

1  Bom.  XXV,  175,  253,  and  257.  Vising,  in  his  notice  of  Meyer's 
edition  (Jhrsbrcht.  Rom.  Phil.  IV,  1,  2;)7),  resents  tlie  reference  to  the 
"  close  "  of  the  Aiigh)-Norinan  period,         2  cf^  xhQ  remarks  on  p.  184. 

3  Cf.  nom.  XXV,  175  and  18!).  On  p.  18G,  line  21,  is  not  "XIII" 
si6cle  '^  a  misprint  for  ''  XI V^'  si6cle  "? 


ANGLO-NORMAN   DIALECT  35 

BOZON 

1.  We  know  little  of  this  writer  of  both  prose  and  poetry 
beyond  his  name,  which  is  spelled  in  four  different  ways : 
Bozon,  Boioun,  Boson,  and  Bosoim.  Wright  indicates  ^  that 
the  name  was  a  common  one,  which  fact  increases  the 
difficulties  of  identifying  Bozon  the  writer.  Allusions  in 
his  Contes  point  to  their  having  been  written  a  little  after 
1320,  and  to  their  author's  acquaintance  with  the  North 
of  England. 

2.  Les  Contes  MoraUsees  cle  Nicole  Bozon,  Fr^re  Mineur. 
Edited  by  L.  T.  Smith  and  P.  Meyer,  Paris,  1889  {Anc. 
Textes).  A  few  poems  of  Bozon  are  incorporated  in  this 
volume  and  others  referred  to. 

3.  The  edition  is  based  on  a  London  Ms.,  with  variants 
from  one  of  Cheltenham.  These,  together  with  a  Ms.  con- 
taining a  Latin  translation  of  some  of  the  Contes,  are  de- 
scribed, pp.  Ixvi-lxxiii. 

4.  The  date  of  the  Mss.  is  not  later  than  the  middle  of 
the  fourteenth  century.  The  date  of  the  original  has  been 
alluded  to  above  as  after  1320.  (The  evidence  for  this  date 
was  derived  from  the  Contes  alone,  however;  there  is  no 
certain  indication  for  the  poetry.^) 

5.  The  language  is  treated,  pp.  Iviii-lxvi.^ 

Eor  convenience  of  reference  in  the  pages  that  now  follow, 
I  append  here  a  table  of  the  texts  arranged  in  the  order  just 
indicated.  The  term  "  beginning  "  includes,  approximately, 
the  first  forty  years  of  the  given  century ;  "  middle,"  from 
about  — 40  to  about  —60 ;  "  latter  part "  from  about  — 60 
to  the  end. 

1  Biogr.  Brit.  Lit.  p.  331.  2  cf.  jRom.  XXIV,  362,  f.-n.  2. 

3  On  p.  Iviii,  foot-note,  the  reference  is  to  Bom.  XII  and  not  XIII. 
I  do  not  go  into  details  concerning  Bozon's  language.  At  his  time 
the  irregularities,  particularly  in  orthography,  become  overwhelming. 
For  the  fourteenth  century  in  general  we  have  the  dissertation  of  E. 
Busch  :  Laiit  und  Forme nlelire  der  Anglonormannischen  Sprache  des 
XIV  Jahrhunderts,  Greifswald,  1887. 


36 


MANUAL   OF   OLD  FRENCH   DIALECTS 


twelfth  century 
Middle 


Latter  Part 


Middle 


Latter  Part 


thirteenth  century 
Beginning 


fourteenth  century 
Beginning 

AND 

Middle 


Philippe  de  Thaiin 

Alexis 

Lois  GuiUaume 

Oxford  Psalter 

Cambridge  Psalter 

Arundel  Psalter 

Quatre  Livres  des  Rois 

Poland 

Brandan 

Gaimar 

Adgar 

Fantosme 

Angier 

Chardri 

Guillaume  de  Berneville 

Modwenne 

Vie  St.  Thomas 

Adam 

Boeve 

Amadas 

Chevalierj  Dame  et  Clerc 

Auban 

Sardenai 

Aspremont 

Madeleine 
Fabliau  du  Hh'on 
Donnei  des  Amants 
PUerinage  Charlemagne 
Melanges  de  Poesie 

'  Bible  Fragment 
Ajjocabjpse 
Descente  St.  Paul 
Bozon 


ANGLO-NORMAN  DIALECT  37 

III.    PHONOLOGY  AND  MORPHOLOGY 

I  now  approach  that  portion  of  my  task  which  will  inevi- 
tably lend   itself  to  criticism,  correction,  and  completion. 
First  of   all,  I  have  tried  to  do  what  has  not  been  done 
before,  —  to  construct  a  grammar  of  Anglo-Norman,  not  as 
a  means  of  comparison  of  known  developments  with  those  of 
some  text  to  be  edited,  but  a  grammar  of  the  dialect  as  a 
whole.     I  divide  this  part  into  appropriate  headings  and 
sections  just  as  if  it  were  the  grammar  of  a  most  important 
language.      Whatever   may  be  the  disadvantages   of   this 
scheme,  it  pretends  to  one  advantage :  the  student  can  dis- 
cover quickly  what  the  Anglo-Norman  treatment  of  various 
phenomena  was,  whether  important  or  not.     It  goes  without 
saying  that,  at  my  distance  from  sources,  I  have  not  been 
able  to  base  my  statements  on  personal  examination  of  the 
Mss.  involved.     I  have  often  depended  on  studies  of  the 
language    of   the   different   texts  by  writers  who  are   not 
always  authorities,  perhaps,  and  who,  in  any  case,  are  not 
always  careful  to  distinguish  between  language  of  author 
and  of  scribe.      Some  of  these  studies  (already  referred  to 
in  my  bibliography  of  texts),  especially  those  on  the  earlier 
texts,  are  doctors'  dissertations,  which  are  to  be  quoted  with 
caution  because,  as  first  attempts,   they   often  betray  the 
inexperience  —  in  no  way  blameworthy  —  of  their  authors ; 
these  monographs  I  have  endeavored  to  control  by  consult- 
ing the  published  texts  for  myself,  and  by  a  careful  colla- 
tion of  the  given  dissertations  with  the  important  reviews 
of  them  (to  which  reviews  I  have  likewise  made  reference 
in  my  bibliography). 


PHONOLOGY 


A 

1.    FREE   A  >  E. 

1.  Quality  of  the  E  <  A.  Here  we  enter  upon  one  of 
the  fundamental  questions  of  Old  French  philology.  Early 
in  the  history  of  our  subject  it  was  seen  that  we  have  to  deal 
with  three  different  e's  :  e  <  a,  e  <  e,  and  e  <  e  or  i.  The 
distinction  among  them  is  undeniable,  but  as  to  the  exact 
value  of  each  of  the  three  no  definite  result  has  been  at- 
tained. In  brief,  e  <  a  assonances  only  with  itself  (or  with 
an  e  <  E  which  has  not  diphthongized  in  free  position,  as 
deiis,  eret),  so  that  this  e  <  a  is  neither  open  nor  close  in  the 
sense  that  6  <  e  or  e  was  close  or  open.^ 

In  Anglo-Norman  this  e  <  A  (and  here  we  have  to  in- 
clude the  e  of  the  reduced  diphthong^  ie,  cf.  p.  55)  is  to  be 
considered  close,  for  the  earlier  monuments  at  least.  The 
bibliography  on  this  point  is  quite  one-sided.^  The  ulti- 
mate confusion  in  Anglo-Norman  rhyme  of  close  e  <  A  with 
an  open  e  rejflects  the  similar  condition  of  affairs  on  the 

1  A  general  idea  of  the  points  of  the  question  may  be  had  from 
consulting  the  following  references  :  Paris,  Bom.  IV,  499,  VII,  122  ; 
Such.  Zt.  Ill,  137  ;  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  213,  §  225  ;  Nyrop,  Gram.  I, 
153  ;  Such.  Gram.  p.  24. 

2  We  note  the  first  definite  statements  for  Anglo-Norman  by  Suchier, 
Zt.  II,  293,  III,  140.  Cf.  Zt.  Ill,  593  (Mussafia)  ;  Uhlemann,  in  his 
work  on  Auban,  Boman.  Stud.  IV,  563,  questions  the  close  e  ;  he 
suggests  that  its  value  may  have  varied  at  different  periods  of  Anglo- 
Norman,  or  according  to  accented  or  unaccented  position.  Suchier, 
lAthlt.  Ill,  15,  disproves  this,  and  adheres  to  his  idea  that  e  was  close 
in  every  position  up  to  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century.  Cf.  Vising, 
£!tude,  p.  68. 

38 


PHONOLOGY  39 

Continent.  The  tendency  to  confusion  was  especially,  and 
maybe  first,  manifested  in  the  case  of  e  +  ?  or  r} 

2.  Orthographic  Variants  of  E  <  A.  The  two  most 
important  and  frequently  recurring  variants  are  ie  and  ei, 
both  found  in  a  number  of  the  earliest  texts  and  appearing, 
with  greater  or  less  frequency,  throughout  the  entire  Anglo- 
Norman  period.  They  are  to  be  noted,  too,  because  it  has 
been  claimed  that  they  represented,  in  some  cases  at  least, 
real  phonetic  values. 

a.  le.  A  few  examples  for  this  are  the  following :  CmniJoz, 
diers  (cLARUs)  300G,  jyiert  (paret)  2509  (both  Ms.  L)  ;  Camb. 
Psalt.  rememhriere  (LXXIII,  18,  22),  aUtiere  (XXI,  3)  and 
the  like.^  Instances  in  the  Camb.  Psalt.  seem  confined  to 
derivates  of  -ator.  Chardri,  Petit  Plet,  tiel,  216,  451 ;  Boeve, 
tiel,  3564,  3830  (Ms.  D).  Full  lists  of  examples  are  given 
by  Sttirzinger  ^  and  Stimming.* 

The  first  explanation  we  note  here  is  that  of  MalP  to  the 
effect  that  since  Continental  ie  early  lost  its  value  as  a  diph- 
thong in  Anglo-Norman  (cf.  below,  p.  55),  the  scribes  did  not 
have  a  definite  knowledge  as  to  the  proper  use  of  the  ie; 
in  their  efforts  to  write  a  correct  French,  they  replaced  their 
Anglo-Norman  e  by  ie,  but  gave  no  thought  to  the  ety- 
mological background  of  their  e;  consequently  we  find  in 
Anglo-Norman  this  ie  representing  not  only  the  regular  de- 
velopment of  Popular  Latin  open  e,  but  also  substituted  for 
e  <  A  and  e  <  e.  Schumann  (p.  14),  with  an  eye  to  the  class 
of  words  (<-ator)  peculiar  to  his  text  {Camb.  Psalt.), 
thought  that  words  of  the  type  of  remembriere  were  analo- 

1  Cf.  p.  48,  "  a  +  Z  or  r  "  for  references  and  examples.  Cf.  also 
Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  214,  §  226. 

2  Schumann,  p.  14.  (For  the  full  titles  of  works  referred  to,  as 
here,  by  a  mere  name,  I  expect  the  student  to  refer  to  my  text  bibli- 
ography above.  In  this  way  he  will  become  familiar  with  the  monu- 
ments and  works  and  workers  on  them.  For  example,  here  he  will 
look  under  Camb.  Psalt.  p,  14,  §  5,  studies  on  the  language.) 

3  Orth.  Gall.  pp.  39-40.  *  Boeve,  p.  176. 
^  Cumpoz,  p.  69. 


40  MANUAL   OF  OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

gous  to  others  like  jugierre,  in  which  ie  was  a  regular 
phonetic  development.  The  explanation  of  Mall  seems 
more  in  accord  with  what  we  should  expect  of  the  average 
Anglo-Norman  scribe.^ 

The  suggestion  that  the  ie  might  represent  a  phonetic 
change  was  Suchier's  ;  ^  he  based  it  on  English  friar  <  frdre 
(fratrem).  Stimming,  however,^  claims  that  friar,  briar, 
and  the  like  originated  in  South  England,  where  close  e 
regularly  becomes  i  and  el,  and  that  the  a  was  a  glide  sound 
between  these  and  the  r. 

On  the  relative  ages  of  ie  and  ee,  see  below,  p.  41. 

b.  ei.  Examples  for  ei  are  very  numerous,  beginning 
with  the  earliest  texts  ;  for  instance,  Oxf.  Psalt}  seit  (sapit) 
LXXII,  11,  LXXXVIII,  15,  seis,  LXVIII,  4 ;  Camb.  FsalL' 
espeie,  XLIII,  3,  6,  incurveie,  XXXIV,  15;  Gaimar,  leveiz, 
1383 ;  Dialog.  Greg,  aleir,  remaneir,  acheveir,  and  the  like.^ 

Verb  forms,  like  those  just  cited  from  Angier  and  Gaimar, 
swelled  the  number  of  examples  of  this  phenomenon;  since 
-eir  verbs  so  frequently  become  -er  in  Anglo-Norman  (cf. 
p.  119),  scribes  were  confused  as  to  the  correct  usage  of  -eir 
and  -er.  In  examples  not  drawn  from  verb  forms  we  have 
to  do  with  an  uncertainty  of  the  scribes,  like  that  in  the  case 
of  ie;  that  is,  since  ei  (<  close  Popular  Latin  e)  was  re- 
duced to  e  in  Anglo-Norman  (cf.  p.  52),  the  scribes,  in  their 
efforts  to  restore  ei,  substituted  it  for  every  e,  whatever  the 
origin  of  e. 

Suchier  '^  considered  this  ei  as  a  graphic  variant,  but  here 
again  Stimming^  disagrees  with  him,  saying  there  is  evi- 
dence that  ei  was  a  diphthong.^ 

1  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Oram.  I,  173,  §  179 ;  Stiirzinger,  OrtJi.  Gall.  pp. 
38-39,  41  (here  we  find  a  bibliography  for  the  history  of  the  ie). 

2  Gram.  p.  23.  s  jjoeve,  pp.  176,  181. 
^  Harseim,  p.  277.                    ^  Schumann,  p.  15. 

6  Cloran,  p.  40.  '  Gram.  p.  24.  ^  Boeve,  p.  175. 

^  Rhymes  from  Dialog.  Greg,  may  indicate  the  same.  Cf .  Clorau, 
p.  40. 


PHONOLOGY  41 

c.  oi.  This  orthography  may  be  counted  as  a  variant  of 
the  ei  just  treated;  it  is  used  for  words  in  which  ei  replaced 
e  <  A,  and  is  an  extension  of  the  oi  for  ei  <  e  (cf.  p.  50).  The 
only  examples  noted  are  for  the  Dialog.  Greg} 

d.  ee.  A  few  examples  here  are  Campoz,  ^wert  (Ms.  C, 
2519) ;  Bestiaire,  seet,  eet,  p/e?i/ee  (Walberg,  LXXXIV) ; 
Gaimar,  leez,  665-,  Chardri,  Pet.  Plet,  seet  (Ms.  V,  172).^ 

Here  again  the  first  explanation  we  note  is  that  of  Mall/ 
who  speaks  of  the  use  of  ee  or  ee  as  a  variation  of  ie ;  that 
is,  the  scribe  desired  to  indicate  a  sound  other  than  that  of 
e,  but  did  not  want  to  use  ie.  This  remark  is  quoted  by 
Suchier  *  in  refutation  of  Uhlemann,  who,  in  upholding  his 
claim  for  an  open  pronunciation  of  e  <  a,  cited  the  orthog- 
raphy ee  (of  the  Auhan)  as  indicating  an  open  e.  Mall 
thought  of  it  as  pointing  to  close,  lengthened  e.  Sttirzinger  ^ 
makes  some  interesting  remarks  upon  the  relative  ages  of  ee 
and  ie,  though  what  he  says  may  appear  somewhat  contra- 
dictory. In  his  discussion  of  ee  <  free  open  e,  he  says  that 
ee  was  not  a  stage  preceding  ie,  but  was  so  used  to  denote 
the  length  of  the  vowel  {i.e.  of  e  which  Anglo-Norman  used 
for  ie),  after  the  fashion  of  English  orthography  of  the 
fourteenth  century.  Then  he  says  that  ee  =  e  =  a  fell  in 
phonetically  with  ee  =  ie  =  e,  and  by  false  analogy  to  the 
latter,  the  former  ee  was  likewise  written  ie.  Thus  here 
(in  the  case  of  ee  =  e  =  a)  ee  must  have  preceded  ie ;  in  the 
other  case  (ee  =  e),  ee  must  have  followed  ie.  If,  however, 
ee  was  fashioned  after  English  orthography  of  the  fourteenth 
century  to  indicate  the  length  of  e  in  one  instance,  it  seems 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  was  used  at  this  time  to  denote 
the  length  of  all  e's,  regardless  of  their  provenance.  If, 
again,  ee  was  thus  late  in  its  diffusion,  it  probably  had  little 
to  do  with  the  origin  of  fe  =  e  =  a,  a  better  explanation  of 

1  Cloran,  p.  40. 

2  Texts  and  examples,  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  175 ;  Stiirzinger,  Orth. 
Gall  pp.  40^1.  8  Ciimpoz,  p.  60. 

4  Litblt.  Ill,  16  (cf.  Zt.  Ill,  477).  ^  Orth.  Gall.  p.  40. 


42  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

which  has  already  been  suggested  (p.  39).  Difficulty  will 
be  experienced  in  establishing  comparative  dates  for  such 
phenomena,  since  we  have  to  base  our  arguments  on  the 
usage  of  scribes  who  so  easily  confused  spellings.  The 
simplest  statement  to  be  made  is  doubtless  this :  ee  was 
used  to  indicate  close  e;  this  close  e  was  that  <  a  and 
that  <  ie  <  k  ;  the  ee  was  independent  of  ie  <  e  (and,  of 
course,  of  ie  as  used  for  e  <  a)  ;  there  is  no  evidence  point- 
ing to  any  progression  in  the  phonetic  development  of  the 
sounds  denoted  by  ee  and  ie,  or  in  the  use  of  these  signs  by 
the  scribes. 

e.  ae  or  oe.  Examples  for  ae  have  been  noted  in  Auban  : 
saet  (sapit),^  V^ie  Greg. :  aeve  (acqua)  ;  ^  Camb.  Fsalt. 
paerre,  XXXVIII,  14. 

Uhlemann^  adduced  ae  as  a  further  proof  of  the  open 
value  he  wished  to  assign  to  the  e  <  a.  Suchier^  again 
refuses  to  accept  this  idea,  saying  that  ae  is  only  an  ortho- 
graphical ornament  used  as  an  alternative  for  e,  just  as  y  is 
used  for  i  (cf.  p.  65)  —  both  without  any  especial  phonetic 
value.  He  reverts  to  this  again  in  his  Grammatik,'^  refer- 
ring there  to  oe  (as  well  as  ae)  as  an  alternative  for  e. 
Meyer,^  however,  seems  to  understand  ae  as  indicating  the 
open  sound  of  e  in  his  text.  (See  further  ae  =  ai  under  a  -f- 
palatal,  p.  45,  and  ae  =  e  <  ei  <  e,  p.  52.) 

f.  a.  Examples  for  this  are  noted  by  Suchier ;  ^  as, 
Camb.  Psalt.  avortad;  Quatre  Liv.  R.:  strae  (for  estree);  he 
says  such  words  are  either  scribal  errors,  or  else  to  be  ex- 
plained each  by  itself.     Stimming^  notes  estat  in  Boeve. 

g.  i.  With  the  exception  of  til  =  tel,  Denis  Pyramus,  Vie 
St.  Edmond,  654,^  examples  seem  to  be  confined  to  the  pret- 

1  Uhlemann,  p.  5G2.  2  jj^^n.  XII,  194. 

8  LUhlt.  Ill,  16.  *  p.  19. 

6  Gram.  p.  23.  «  Boeve,  p.  176. 

7  My  examples  from  this  text  are  drawn  from  the  edition  of  Arnold 
in  Memorials  of  St.  Edmond's  Abbey,  London,  1892.  Vol.  II,  pp. 
137  ss.     [A  new  edition  of  the  Vie  is  now  being  prepared.] 


PHONOLOGY  43 

erite  and  past  participle  7'emis  or  mist  (rtmasus,  masit), 
obviously  analogical.    Stimming  gives  texts  and  references.^ 

h.  ai.  ai  really  does  not  belong  here,  as  it  is  not  a  vari- 
ant of  e  in  orthography,  but  of  an  a  which  has  remained,  for 
whatever  reason.  It  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  a 
noted  above  (under  f).  It  seems  to  be  a  peculiarity  of  four- 
teenth-century texts,  though  in  atonic  position  it  occurs  at 
a  much  earlier  date  (cf.  p.  50).  Stimming^  gives  examples 
like  lerrai  for  lerra,  ai  for  a  (habet). 

i.  eo.  eo  for  close  e  corresponds  to  ea  for  open  e.  It  is 
comparatively  late ;  cf .  below,  p.  57,  §  13. 

2.    A   BEFORE    A    PALATAL. 

The  history  of  the  developments  here  is  interesting  be- 
cause some  of  them  are  limited  to  Anglo-Norman  territory 
and  because  several  of  the  most  important  are  to  be  observed 
in  Anglo-Norman  before  they  make  their  appearance  in 
continental  French.  We  find  in  our  texts  that  ai  has  the 
value  of  qi,  or  else  that  of  ^  in  pronunciation  and  that  ei  and 
e  occur  with  great  frequency  in  orthography,  though  not  to 
the  exclusion  of  ai  which  is  found  particularly  in  the  older 
prose  texts,  as  the  Psalters  and  Lois  Quilkiume,  and  doubt- 
less there  represents  the  original  pronunciation  (di).  Anglo- 
Norman  poets,  however,  without  regard  to  the  value  of  ai  as 
di,  ei,  or  e  (cf.  below),  used  it,  at  times,  in  rhyme  with  i 
(pais  :  dis,  Denis  Pyramus). 

1.  EI  AND  E.  We  note  the  former  in  Bestiaire,^  Lois 
GuiUaume,  Oxf.  Psalt.,  Quatre  Liv.  R.,  Branclan,  Gaimar, 
Angier,  and  Boeve ;  the  latter  in  Cumpoz,  Bestiaire,^  Domes- 
day Book,^  Lois  Guillaiime,  Camb.  Psalt.,  Q.L.B.,  Brandan, 
Gaimar,  Angier,  Chardri,  Gme.  de  Berneville,  Boeve,  Sar- 
denai  (leisse  :  confesse,  241),  Donnei  (p.  532). 

Some  of  the  discussion  here  is  worthy  of  attention.    Mall  ^ 

1  Boeve,  p.  176  ;  cf.  below,  §  m,  2. 

2  Ibid.  p.  172.  8  Walberg,  pp.  xlviii,  Ixxxv,  xUv. 
*  Zt.  VIII,  358.                       6  Cumpoz,  p.  59. 


44  MANUAL   OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

mentions  tliree  cases  from  liis  text  and  four  from  the  Bes- 
tiaire  in  which  a  +  a  palatal  is  represented  by  e,  all  the  ex- 
amples showing  ai-\-str','^  he  says  the  e  shows  that  the 
character  of  the  ai  as  a  diphthong  was  being  modified  at  the 
time  of  these  texts  and  was  approaching  the  value  of  q.  Six 
years  after  Mall's  statement  had  been  made,  G-rober  -  seems 
to  wish  to  combat  a  tendency  then  prevalent  to  place  the 
general  reduction  of  ai  at  too  early  a  date.  He  says  the 
monophthongization  took  place  in  the  works  of  Philippe  de 
Thaiin  on  account  of  the  phonetically  difficult  (and  long) 
consonant  group  following  the  ai  (maistre,  paistre)  and  not 
from  a  general  tendency  in  that  direction.  The  nature  and 
date  of  the  development  attracted  much  attention  about  the 
time  of  Grober's  note,^  and  after  this  time  we  observe  that 
editors  and  grammarians  study  the  ai  with  reference  to  its 
position  before  consonant,  or  vowel,  or  consonant  group,  or 
final,  and  the  like.  For  example,  Paris  establishes  the  fol- 
lowing for  Gme.  de  Berne ville :  ^  ai  is  distinct  from  ei,  both 
final  and  before  a  consonant.  Ait  :^eit  only  once  (3307)  nor 
does  ai7i  :  ein ;  but  mais  :  pres,  lairme  :  terme,  fairs  :  terre. 
The  value  of  the  latter  ai  is  ^.  If  we  draw  up  a  table  formu- 
lated from  Pariy's  remarks,  we  shall  have  the  following:  — 

e  <  ton.  check.  ^ :  ai-{-  Cons. 

e  <  ton.  check.  ^  does  not  rhyme  with  e  <  e,  i. 

e  <  ton.  check.  ^  and  e  <  e,  i  do  not  rhyme  with  e  <  a. 

(Incidentally  we  note  the  three  e's  in  his  text.) 

In  Vising,  Etude,  pp.  75,  84,  and  93,  we  note  the  following : 
in  Brandan,  Gaimar  and  Fantosme,  ai  :  ei  before  nasals. 
Under  other  circumstances  there  are  variations :  Brandan  ; 
ai  not :  ei. 

1  Cf.  Walberg,  p.  xliv.  2  zt.  Ill,  451,  f.-n. 

3  Keferences  to  several  important  articles  are  given  by  Neumann, 
Lithlt.  IV,  18.    Add  to  these  bis  own  clear  statement,  Zt.  XIV,  569. 

*  p.  xxvii. 

^  I  use  this  sign  [:]  to  indicate  "  rhyming  with,"  "rhymes  with," 
etc. 


PHONOLOGY  45 

ai :  e  (once,  termes :  lermes,  891).  Gaimar ;  ei  not  :  ai ;  ^  ei 
not :  e  ;  ai :  e.  Eantosme  -,  ai:e  often ;  ^  ei :  e  seldom  ;  ei :  ai ;  ^ 
ei :  e. 

From  this  state  of  affairs  Vising  concludes  that  ai  became 
a  monophthong  (e)  before  ei  did.  [This  to  explain  ai  not : 
ei,  and  ei  not :  e.]  When  we  do  find  ai:  ei,  it  is  after  both 
had  become  monophthongs.  If  Vising  means  that  ai  and  ei 
went  different  ways  in  developing  into  e,  he  may  not  be 
right;  it  seems  more  likely  that  ai  passed  through  the  ei 
stage  before  simplification  to  e.'^  Suchier  mentions  as  char- 
acteristic of  Anglo-Norman  the  contraction  in  a  free  sylla- 
ble ;  likewise  the  endings  ai,  aie,  continue  as  diphthongs  in 
this  dialect.  We  note  an  example  of  the  latter  usage  in 
Boeve,^  where  ai  rhymes  with  ei  (<  e)  ;  as  sai :  mei,  etc. 

2.   Orthogkaphic  Variants  of  AI,  EI,  E. 

a.  ee.  This  variant  is  spoken  of  at  length  by  Stlirzinger,^ 
who  says  it  is  phonetically  different  from  the  ee  <  e  and  the 
ee  <  e  (<  a),  and  that  it  is  never  written  ie.  He  gives  exam- 
ples from  Gaimar,  Chardri,  Langtoft,  and  others.  Stim- 
ming^  adds  a  few :  ^jees  (pacem),  fees  (fascem),  and  the  like. 

b.  a.  This  occurs  with  some  frequency;  many  of  the 
examples  are  those  of  verb  terminations  where  -ai  has  been 
replaced  by  -a  ^  (fra  =ferai,  sa  =  sai,  etc.),  also  fare,  fates, 
plase,  and  the  like.  Stimming  ^  refers  to  texts.  Cloran  ^  adds 
three  examples  from  his  text. 

c.  ae.  This  has  been  noted  only  for  Angier,^"  and  exam- 
ples seem  confined  to  closed  syllables  {paestre,  maestre,  etc.). 

d.  oi.     This  occurs  often  in  Angier  ^  {foit,  soie,  porroi, 

1  Cf.  here  Kupferschmidt,  p.  417. 

2  Chardri's  usage  is  similar  to  that  of  Fantosme ;  cf.  Vising,  J^tude, 
p.  75,  Such.  Lithlt.  Ill,  17. 

3  In  aine^  eine,  aire,  eire,  and  not  when  final ;  Such.  Auban,  p. 
4  ;  Litblt.  Ill,  17. 

*  For  detailed  statement  cf.  Such.  Gram.  pp.  37-39. 

s  Stimming,  p.  viii.  «  Orth.  Gall.  p.  41.  ^  Boeve,  p.  195. 

8  For  the  opposite  process  (a  >  ai),  cf.  p.  43. 

9  Dialog.  Greg.  p.  42.  1°  Meyer,  p.  193;  Cloran,  p.  41. 


46  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

etc.),  and  is  not  limited  to  words  in  which  the  ai  follows  a 
labial.^     An  instance  occurs  in  Melanges^  (cf.  p.  32),  soi~ 

SAPIO. 

e.  aei.  This  seems  very  rare.  There  is  an  example  in 
the  Arundel  Psalt.  paeis/  and  Cloran*  notes  two  (traeit, 
vaeis)  in  the  Dialog.  Greg.  Here  the  aei  =  ei  (which  in 
Angier  is  more  frequent  than  ai),  the  ae  being  equivalent  to 
the  e  (cf.  p.  42). 

f.  ea.  Here  I  have  noted  only  eat  =  ait  <  habet  in 
Articuli  Willelmi^  (cf.  p.  57,  ea  for  checked  e). 

3.  A   BEFORE    L   MOUILLEE. 

Anglo-Norman  belongs  to  the  dialects  which  change 
aVe  >  eVe.  This  occurs  in  Q.  L.  R.  before  the  accent  only ; 
later  in  accented  syllables.^ 

4.  A   BEFORE    A   NASAL. 

1.    Free  Position. 

a.  ain  and  ein.  These  two  do  not  rhyme  in  Cumpoz  and 
Bestiaire,  nor  in  the  Vie  St.  Gilles.'^  In  the  other  poetical 
texts  they  do.^  In  prose  texts  ei  and  ai  interchange  from 
the  beginning.  In  Oxf.  Psalt.,  for  example,  ai  occurs  even 
for  etymological  ei  (fain,  rain).  In  Lois  Guillaume  ei  oc- 
curs but  three  times  (two  of  these  in  atonic  syllable).^  In 
Anglo-Norman  the  early  confusion  of  ain  and  ein  is  charac- 
teristic ;  the  ei  became  ai  in  pronunciation  in  the  middle  of 
the  twelfth  century,  and  after  that  time  the  two  were  used 
promiscuously  in  orthography. 


10 


1  Cf.  Such.  Gram.  p.  39,  e.  ^  jjo,,^.  iv,  377. 

8  Zt.  XII,  24.         *  Dialog.  Greg.  p.  42.         &  Zt.  XIX,  81,  f.-u.  10. 

6  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  219,  §  232. 

7  Mall,  p.  59 ;  Walberg,  p.  xlviii ;  Paris,  p.  xxvii ;  Vising,  Lithlt. 
IV,  311. 

8  References  in  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  106.  '  Matzke,  p.  xliii. 

10  Such.  Gram.  p.  72  ;  (in)  Grober's  Gruiidriss,  I,  672  ;  Franqais  et 
Provenqal,  p.  23. 


PHONOLOGY  47 

b.  am  and  aine.  It  is  worth  noting  that  these  two 
rhyme  in  late  Anglo-Norman  (as  fontaine  :  lendemain)} 

c.  en.  Examples  of  en  for  aiyi  are  rare  in  earlier  Anglo- 
Norman.  In  Q.  L.  R.  we  see  enz ;  in  Roland,  marrenes.  A 
few  others,  including  some  from  Boeve,  are  given  by  Stim- 
ming.-  In  the  Aj^ocalypse,  ain,  ein,  and  en  have  but  one 
sound,  and  in  Bozon  en  is  even  written  for  ai  {greyidre)  and 
ei  (mendre).^ 

d.  an.  This  seems  more  frequent  for  ain  than  does  en, 
and  occurs  in  rhyme  several  times,  as  aJian  :  payi  (panem), 
Adain;  also  in  proper  names,  as  Jolian  :  Abraam.^ 

2.  Checked  Position.  The  most  interesting  phenome- 
non we  encounter  here  is  the  appearance  of  au  for  a  -\- 
nasal  -j-  consonant :  quaunt,  davaunt,  graunt,  and  the  like. 
The  first  examples  accurately  dated  are  given  by  Stlirzinger,^ 
the  earliest  being  of  1266.  Still  earlier,  however,  may  be 
those  given  by  Koch  ^  from  Ms.  L  of  Chardri  (first  half  of 
the  thirteenth  century).  We  may  say,  in  a  general  way,  that 
the  a  +  nasal  +  consonant  became  au  during  the  second  part 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  Note,  for  example,  the  remark 
of  Meyer  ^  in  connection  with  the  Fabliau  du  Heron,  to  the 
effect  that  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  in  the  latter  part  of  a 
manuscript  (written  at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century), 
au7i  and  oun  which  do  not  occur  in  the  poems  of  the  earlier 

1  Examples  and  references,  Meyer,  Bom.  XXV,  255. 

2  p.  197  ;  cf.  Such.  Gram.  p.  71. 

3  Bom.  XXV,  256  ;  Bozon,  p.  lix. 

^  Such.  Gram,  p-  71 ;  Stimmmg,  Boeve,  p.  197  ;  Walberg,  p.  xli ; 
Cloran,  p.  43.  ^  Orth.  Gall.  p.  xxxix. 

6  pp.  vi  and  xxx.  Meyer-Ltibke,  Gram.  I,  227,  §  245,  speaks  of 
examples  from  Ms.  O,  which  is  later  than  L.  Koch  specifically  cites 
aun  of  jVIs.  L,  while  avowing  that  it  is  rare.  Cf.  also  Such.  Gram. 
p.  67  ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  173  ;  and  Uhlemann,  Auban,  p.  559.  Stim- 
ming  probably  errs  in  including  Angler's  works  among  texts  showing 
aun,  since  Meyer,  p.  193,  says  aun  does  not  occur  in  Vie  Greg.,  nor 
does  Cloran  (p.  43)  cite  an  instance  for  the  Dialogues. 

7  Bom.  XXVI,  88. 


48  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

part  of  tlie  same  Ms.  (written  in  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth 
century). 

The  origin  and  nature  of  this  aim  have  not  been  definitely- 
established.  Koschwitz  first  suggested  ^  that  the  diphthong 
arose  after  a  +  Z  +  consonant  had  become  au,  —  it  was  equiva- 
lent to  a  +  a  T(-glide  ("nachklang").  We  note  no  further 
discussion  till  twenty  years  later,  when  Sheldon  touches 
upon  the  point,^  proposing  a  phonetical  explanation  based  on 
the  result  of  the  contact  on  English  territory  of  the  French 
and  English  pronunciations  of  a  and  of  nasal  consonants. 
Many  questions  are  to  be  raised  in  a  study  of  this  problem, 
and  the  whole  demands  extended  treatment.^ 

ain.  I  have  noted  one  example  of  ai  in  checked  position, 
—  that  in  Arundel  PsalL,  caimp} 

5.   A   BEFORE   L   OR   R. 

For  the  endings  -alem,  -alum  we  note  hesitation  in  Anglo- 
Norman  between  a  and  e.  Examples  are  given  by  Suchier  ^ 
and  Walberg:^  tal,  mal,  mortal,  etc.  We  find  tal  in  Vie 
GregJ  and  al  in  general  in  Adam.^  This  tendency  for  -al  is 
Norman  and  Anglo-Norman.^  In  cases  where  al  does  become 
el,  poets  may  treat  this  el  as  fj  ^^  (this  forming  the  exception 
to  the  general  e  <  A  in  Anglo-Norman,  cf.  p.  38).  The 
same  confusion  exists  for  e  and  ^  before  r.  Notable  exam- 
ples are  to  be  seen  in  the  Donnei  des  A^nants : "  manere  : 
contrefere;  chanter  :  quer;  identical  rhymes  are  not  cited 
outside  of   Anglo-Norman.     Even  the  e  <  ai  -j-  r  may  be 

1  Ueberlieferung  (full  reference  above,  p.  32),  p.  21. 

2  Child  Memorial  Volume,  Boston,  1896,  pp.  69-76. 

3  Cf.  the  remarks  on  Sheldon's  paper  by  Paris,  Bom.  XXVII,  320, 
and  by  Vising,  Jhrsbrcht.  Bom.  Phil.  V,  2,  p.  289. 

4  Zt.  XI,  520  ;  in  the  same  text  occurs  cam ;  Zt.  XII,  50. 

6  Gram.  p.  22.  ®  Bestiaire,  p.  xli. 

7  Lines  2699,  2767,  for  example. 

8  Grass,  p.  111.  ^  Bom.  XXI,  261. 

10  Such.  Gram.  p.  25 ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  liv,  Ivii. 

11  Bom.  XXV,  532. 


PHONOLOGY  49 

treated  as  close.^  Obviously,  Anglo-Norman  did  not  demand 
an  open  vowel  before  r ;  phonetic  princij)les  seem  to  play  no 
part  here.  Cases  of  rhymes  (or  assonances)  in  -er  came  up 
frequently,  particularly  because  of  numbers  of  infinitive 
forms  (in  original  -er  and  in  -er  <  -eir).  This  -er  was  treated 
by  the  poet  as  -er  or  -^r  according  to  the  needs  of  his 
verse. 

6.    A   PRETONIC. 

1.  Loss  OF  A  IN  Hiatus.  The  most  noteworthy  point 
in  connection  with  pretonic  a  is  the  possibility  of  its  loss  in 
hiatus ;  examples  are  very  few,  but  in  any  case  they  have 
not  been  found  in  texts  other  than  Anglo-Korman,  according 
to  Paris,^  who  cites  lenz  =  laenz  for  the  Donnei,  695,  Adgar 
and  Chardri.  We  note  that  in  the  latter's  Josaphaz,  line 
2621,  Ms.  L  has  lens  by  the  side  of  Ms.  0  leyns.^  In  Vie 
Gi'eg.,  line  437,  an  i  is  inserted  to  break  the  hiatus,  laienz. 
Is  not  clieles  (<  cJiaeles,  quid  velles'*)  Brandan,  343,  another 
instance  of  the  contraction?  Cf.  a  similar  contraction  of 
pretonic  e  (  leale  >  lele)  on  p.  60. 

2.  A  REPLACED  BY  Other  Letters.  a.  6  for  a.  The 
use  of  e  in  cases  like  essalt,  rechata,  seems  much  favored  in 
Anglo-Norman ;  ^  we  note,  too,  that  before  r  +  consonant, 
pretonic  a  >  e  with  great  frequency :  merclier,  herneis,  etc.^ 
It  seems,  nevertheless,  that  cases  in  which  a  remains  are  the 
more  frequent,  and  instances  of  phonetic  e  >  a  are  not  lack- 
ing ;  cf.,  for  example,  chaval  of  the  Cambridge  and  Arundel 
Psalters,  and  in  the  latter  text  e  +  s  +  consonant  often 
becomes  a;  as,  asperunt,  aster,  astrainge  ^  (cf.  p.  62,  pre- 
tonic e). 

1  Stimming,  p.  193.  2  j^om.  XXV,  53L 

8  Koch,  Variants,  p.  186.  ^  Such.,  Zt.  I,  428. 

6  Citations,  Stimming,  p.  172.  We  may  add  to  his  list  Such.  Auban, 
p.  37  ;  Schlosser,  ^.  Z.  i?.  p.  7. 

6  Pretonic  e  +  r  -\-  consonant  >  -ar  is  not  constant  in  general  French 
either.     Cf .  Nyrop,  Gram.  I,  206.  "^  Zt.  XII,  28,  35. 


OF  TKE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


50  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DL-iLECTS 

b.  ai  for  a,  vaillet,  maUiuet,  etc.  For  citations  here,  cf. 
Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  172. 

c.  0,  cm  for  a,  ovesques,  chaustel,  etc.    Cf.  Stimming,  p.  173. 

3.  Pretonic  a  +  Palatal.  Here  the  favorite  orthography 
seems  to  be  ei',  reisini,  teisez,  etc.^  I  have  noted  one  exam- 
ple of  ae  as  variant  of  the  e  of  ei  (cf.  pp.  42  and  46)  in 
Sardenai  (L),  line  98  :  traeisist.  P)esides  ei  we  find  a  {esmaez, 
aez,  etc.),  and  of  course  the  regular  ai  and  e. 

4.  Pretonic  a  -\-  Nasal.  As  variants  of  a  here  we  find 
ain  (eiii),  e  and  o.^  The  mm  of  accented  nasal  a  is  to  be 
seen  quite  as  often  in  the  pretonic  syllable  (demaunder, 
saunte,  etc.).^ 


7.    FREE    E. 

A  proper  classification  of  the  developments  here  would 
be  that  of  ei,  ai,  e,  on  the  one  hand,  and  oi  on  the  other,  be- 
cause ei,  ai,  e,  represent  the  real  Anglo-Norman  products  of 
free  e,  while  oi  was  an  imitation  of  continental  usage.  Then, 
too,  ei,  ai,  e,  denote  a  phonetic  series :  ei  became  ai  (especially 
in  the  endings  -eis,  -eise,  -eire,  -eide,  -eit,  -eite)  before  ai  (<  a 
+  palatal)  had  become  q ;  then  ai  (<  ei)  fell  in  with  ai  {<a-{- 
palatal)  and  became  ^,  too.*  From  the  time  of  the  earliest 
texts,  however,  oi  occurs  sporadically,  and  a  given  writer 
may  use  ei,  ai,  and  oi,  assigning  to  all  the  same  value,  or  else 
he  may  make  distinctions  among  them.  On  account  of  this 
inconsistent  usage,  it  is  convenient  to  classify  the  phenom- 
ena differently  from  what  we  indicated  above.  AVe  shall, 
therefore,  treat  first  of  ei,  ai,  oi ;  then  of  e. 

1.   EI,  AI,  01.     In  Philippe  de  Thaiin  no  ei :  oi,  nor,  for 

1  Examples  and  texts,  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  104,  106  ;  Meyer-Llibke, 
Gram.  I,  302,  §  356. 

2  Stimming,  pp.  174,106.  Add  Arundel  PsaJt.  niaingerent,  Zt.  XII, 
7;  Otinel,  commonde,  48. 

3  Stimming,  I.e.    Add  to  texts  Amadas  et  Ydoine  (Zt.  XIII,  85). 
^  Cf.  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  107-100;  Such.  Gram.  p.  49. 


PHONOLOGY  61 

that  matter,  does  ei:  e}  For  Angier  we  have  the  following 
conclusions :  in  the  Vie,  Meyer  ^  is  not  sure  that  ei  and  oi 
represent  the  same  sound ;  they  do  not  appear  to  be  used 
entirely  by  chance,  a  preference  being  shown  for  oi,  for  ex- 
ample, when  the  diphthong  was  immediately  followed  by 
an  e.  In  other  cases  there  is  hesitation  {mei  and  moi,  en- 
gleis  and  englois),  but  Meyer  thinks  that  the  pronunciation  of 
Angier  was  doubtless  better  indicated  by  ei.  Cloran,  noting 
the  same  confusion  of  ei  and  oi  in  the  Dialogues,  attempts  a 
detailed  study  to  show  in  what  parts  of  verb  or  pronoun  the 
one  or  the  other  predominates ;  ai  occurs  too,  especially  in 
rhyme  words  (trais,  vaire,  etc.),  rarely  in  the  imperfect  tense.^ 

In  Chardri  \_Clievalier,  Dame  et  Clerc,  and  Ada^n']  rhymes 
like  voie :  joie  indicate  the  value  of  the  combination.^ 

In  Gme.  de  Berneville  the  ei  remains  intact  and  is  not  con- 
fused with  ai  nor  oi  whether  final  or  followed  by  a  conso- 
nant.' In  Boeve  there  is  complete  assimilation  of  ai  and  ei, 
oi  too  being  known  to  the  author.^  In  Auhan  ei,  ai,  and  oi 
occur,  though  the  second  is  infrequent.  In  this  connection 
Ulilemann  notes  ^  that  in  Anglo-jSTorman  ei  for  etymological 
ai  is  frequent,  the  reverse  rare ;  he  suggests  as  a  reason  for 
this  that  ei  appealed  to  the  eye  as  indicating  the  sound  it 
represented,  and  it  does  not  give  place  to  ai ;  on  the  other 
hand  we  do  find  ei  for  ai  because  ei  looks  as  if  it  represented 
better  (than  ai)  the  sound  of  ai  (which  was  ^i  or  ^.  It  is 
to  be  questioned  whether  this  was  the  mental  process  of  the 
Anglo-Norman  scribes.  A  contemporary  of  the  writer  of 
the  Auban  (the  scribe  of  Amadas)  uses  ai  for  ei  consistently,^ 
and  rhymes  ai  and  oi  (sousferrai:  otroi,  etc.).  Toward  the 
end  of  the  Anglo-Norman  period  oi  and  ai  are  used  indis- 
criminately,^ as  in  Bozon.^'^ 

1  Walberg,  p.  xlviii.      2  Edition,  p.  196.       ^  Cloran,  pp.  44  and  46. 

4  Koch,  p.  xxviii ;  Meyer,  p.  243  ;  Grass,  p.  126. 

^  Paris,  p.  XXX.  ^  Slimming,  p.  viii.  ^  p_  58i_ 

8  Andresen,  p.  86. 

»  As  on  the  Continent,  of.  Zt.  Ill,  389.  10  p.  Hx. 


52  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

2.  E.  e  by  the  side  of  ei  appears  in  most  of  our  earliest 
texts ;  first  of  all  in  some  of  the  proper  names  of  the 
Domesday  Book}  The  e  is  apparently  unknown  to  Philippe, 
though  examples  occur  in  some  of  the  Mss.^  In  the  Lois 
Guillaume  e  is  the  exception  even  in  infinitives.^  It  is  found 
in  Oxf.  Psalt.  and  Q.  L.  R.  especially  in  infinitives  and  imper- 
fects (aver,  complaisee),^  in  Oxf.  Roland  and  Gaimar,^  Angier^ 
{ere,  iter  ;  set,  siat  ;  redde,  rigidus)  ;  Chardri/  Boeve  ^  (where 
the  e  rhymes  with  both  e  and  f),  Amadas,^  Donnei,^^  etc. 

3.  Orthographic  Variants  of  E,  EI,  01. 

a.  Of  e  (ee,  ie,  i,  oe).  As  e  occurs  so  frequently  for  ei 
we  may  look  for  the  same  variants  here  as  those  for  e  <  a, 
since  we  need  not  expect  the  Anglo-Norman  scribe  to  think 
of  the  origin  of  his  e's.  The  two  most  important  variants  of 
e  <  A  do  occur  here ;  that  is,  ee  and  ie,^^  the  former  being  by 
far  the  more  frequent.  One  example  of  ie,  jiez  (=feiz,fois), 
may  be  considered  as  analogous  to  Jiede;  fiehle  and  endieble 
of  the  Cainb.  Psalt.  and  Q.  L.  R.  are  general  Old  French 
forms,  though  found  especially  in  Norman  and  Anglo-Nor- 
man texts.^^  i  is  frequent  for  e  in  pretonic  position  (cf. 
p.  62),  and  a  few  examples  of  the  same  in  tonic  position  are 
found,^^  vodrient,  Jiz  (fois). 

oe  (ae)  occurs  for  any  e  in  Anglo-Norman  (cf.  p.  42)  and 
we  find  it  for  e  <,  ei;  many  examples  are  to  be  noted  in  the 
Q.  L.  R.  (moeis,  quoe,  loe,  etc.),^^ 

b.  Of  ei,  oi  (eai,  aei,  ui).  Here  the  examples  are  very 
few  :  eai  has  been  noted  only  for  Boeve  ^^  {oreayl,  creai,  etc.)  ; 

1  Zt.  VIII,  358.  2  Mall,  p.  60  ;  Walberg,  p.  xlviii. 

8  Matzke,  p.  xlvi. 

4  Harseira,  p.  283  ;  Zt.  I,  669,  II,  482  ;  Sclilosser,  pp.  3,  32,  33. 

^  Stimming,  p.  198.  ^  Meyer,  p.  195 ;  Cloran,  p.  45. 

■^  Koch,  p.  xxviii.  ^  Stimming,  p.  viii. 

^  Andresen,  p.  85.  ^^  Paris,  p.  632. 

"  Texts,  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  198  and  109. 
12  Such.  Gram.  p.  49  ;  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I,  125,  §  115. 
18  Stimming,  p.  200,        Cf.  below,  p.  54  (e  +  nasal). 
1*  Cf.  Plahn,  p.  5.  i^  Stimming,  p.  199. 


PHONOLOGY  53 

in  the  PUerinage,  line  253,  I  note  saei  (soi) ;  for  ui  I  have 
found  only  sui  (=  soi  se),  Arundel  PsalO 

8.  CHECKED  E. 

We  find  that  the  distinction  between  checked  e  and  ^  be- 
fore oral  consonants  was  observed  by  Philippe/  but  already 
in  the  Brandan  the  confusion  appears.^ 

1.  Orthographic  Variants  {ee,  ei,  eo).  I  have  noted 
examples  for  ee  in  one  of  the  earliest  and  one  of  the  latest 
texts :  Arundel  Psalt.  neez  (nitidum),'*  Apocalypse,  seeth 
(septem),  11,  15,  58,  etc.  The  presence  of  the  ee  for  a 
shortened  e  is  remarkable  in  that  ee  is  usually  considered 
as  a  means  of  denoting  lengthening  (cf.  the  remarks  on  the 
ee  <  e  <  A  on  p.  41).  We  find  ei,  too,  in  early  and  in  late 
texts :  Brandan,  oiseil,  rocheit,  etc.,  Gaimar,  valeiz,  etc.  ;  ^  eo 
is  noted  in  the  Camb.  Psalt.  feorm,  eyifeorm^  (cf.  p.  54 
eo  <  e  4-  ^  or  r). 

9.  E  BEFORE  L  MOUILLEE. 

Suchier,^  after  noting  the  oft-cited  conseil  which  occurs  in 
an  ei  assonance  of  the  Poland,  says  that  in  late  Anglo-Nor- 
man el'  was  pronounced  as  ei-l,  ai-l  (counsail,  Eng.  counsel). 
Walberg^  seems  to  have  made  an  especial  study  of  this 
point  and  claims  that  ei  of  eil  was  used  as  a  diphthong  in 
early  Anglo-Norman  too ;  as,  for  example,  in  the  Bestiaire, 
Brayidan,  and  Gaimar. 

10.  E  BEFORE  A  NASAL. 
1.    Free  Position. 

a.  ain,  ein,  en.  Here  we  may  refer  to  the  notes  on  free 
a  -f  nasal  (p.  46)  for  the  confusion  of  am  and  ein ;  ^  e 
occurs,  too  (cf.  p.  47),  and  as  early  as  Gaimar  we  note 
meins :  tens,^^  1811. 

1  Zt.  XI,  517.  2  Walberg,  p.  xliii. 

3  Such.  Gram.  p.  21  ;  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I,  121,  §  111. 

*  Zt.  XII,  30.         5  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  175.         e  o,.^/,„  q^^i  ^  45^ 

"^  Gram.  p.  21.        ^  Bestiaire,  pp.  xlix,  1. 

9  Texts,  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  201.        10  Kupferschmidt,  p.  417. 


54  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

b.  Variants  {oei,  eie,  i).  In  Q.  L.  R.  we  note  moeine  ^  (cf . 
p.  42);  in  eie  the  last  e  is  the  parasitic  e  spoken  of  on 
p.  64  (peiene) ;  I  have  noted  but  one  example  for  i,  that  in 
Pyramus,  St.  Edmoncl,  line  1459,  seiin :  lendemain. 

2.  Checked  Position.  Here  interest  centres  upon  the 
question  of  the  confusion  or  non-confusion  of  en  +  conso- 
nant with  (in  +  consonant.^ 

The  non-confusion  of  the  two  has  always  been  commented 
npon  as  constituting  a  characteristic  of  Anglo-Norman,  and 
as  distinguishing  it  from  continental  Norman,  where  the  two 
rapidly  assimilated.^  This  distinction  between  the  two 
sounds  is  observed  by  our  scribes  with  a  strictness  which  we 
would  hardly  expect  of  them.  The  exceptions  are  very  few; 
they  have  been  cited  for  Chardri,'^  Tristran,^  and  Boeve.^ 

11.    E    BEFORE    L   OR   R. 

Checked  e  -\- 1  -\-  consonant  was  early  confused  with  ^,  as 
it  was  generally  in  checked  position.  Treatment  of  it  will 
be  found  under  ^,  p.  58.  Before  r  we  must  note  the  forms 
of  the  Camb.  Psalt.  feonn,  enfeorm  (firmus),  where  the  r 
induced  an  o  after  the  eJ 

1  Plabn,  p.  5. 

2  For  the  variants  ei  and  eie,  see  under  checked  ^,  p.  58. 

3  Cf.  Mall,  Cumx>oz,  p.  70  ;  Such.  Anban,  p.  3  ;  Kupferschmidt, 
Gainiar,  p.  417  ;  Grass,  Adam,  p.  141 ;  Vising,  Etude,  p.  09  {Brandan), 
p.  81  (Gairaar),  p.  92  (Fantosme). 

4  Koch,  p.  xxxi.  ^  Vising,  Etude,  p.  14. 

•J  Slimming,  p.  Iv.  Stimming  seems  to  indicate  that  Boeve  is  the 
only  poetical  text  showing  the  confusion  in  rhyme  in  Anglo-Norman  ; 
exs.  cited  by  Koch  for  his  text  were  not  called  into  question  by  his 
reviewers,  however,  and  Rottiger,  Der  Tristran  des  Thomas,  Got- 
tingen,  1883,  p.  30,  cites  two  examples.  Rottiger  here  gives  a  general 
bibliography  on  the  point.  Suchier,  in  his  lieimpredigt,  Halle,  1879 
{Jilhl.  Norman,  I),  pp.  09-71,  takes  up  separate  exceptions.  Cf.  his 
Grammatik,  p.  09.  In  Lithlt.  I,  25,  he  included  Fantosme's  Chronique 
among  the  texts  showing  the  confusion,  but  he  corrects  the  error  in 
Eeimpredigt,  p.  70,  f  .-n.  Stimming,  p.  185,  gives  reference  to  examples 
not  in  rhyme  words.  '  Cf.  Such.  Gram.  p.  82. 


PHONOLOGY  55 

12.   FREE   E. 

A  number  of  interesting  points  arise  in  the  study  of  e 
in  Anglo-Norman  ;  we  shall  consider  the  following :  (1)  the 
reduction  of  ie  to  e,  and  the  confusion  of  the  two  in  rhyme ; 
(2)  the  quality  of  the  e  <  ie ;  (3)  was  ie  a  rising  or  a  falling 
diphthong  ?    (4)  different  orthographies  found  in  our  texts. 

1.  IE  AND  E.  We  shall  include  here  a  similar  reduction 
of  ie  <  palatal  -f  a.  The  reduction  was  cited  early  in  the 
history  of  Anglo-Norman  studies,  as  characteristic  of  the 
dialect.^  As  to  the  time  of  the  change,  we  have  to  dis- 
tinguish between  works  in  prose  and  those  in  poetry ;  for 
the  latter,  again,  we  must  separate  the  instances  in  which  e 
for  ie  occurs  in  rhyme  words  from  those  in  which  it  appears 
in  the  interior  of  the  verse ;  finally,  we  should  observe  the 
presence  and  proportion  of  the  rhymes  e :  e,  ie :  ie,  and 
ie  :  e.  Only  the  last  illustrates  conclusively  the  Anglo- 
Norman  peculiarity ;  e  :  e  would  not  prove  it,  for  though 
the  ie  may  have  been  simplified  to  e,  it  was  done  before  the 
use  of  the  e  in  rhyme,  and  might  have  been  caused  by  reason 
of  analogy  or  a  similar  principle.  Actual  statistics  appar- 
ently indicate  that  our  poets  were  not  so  careless  in  their 
use  of  ie  and  e  as  we  might  suspect. 

In  prose  texts  we  find  e  from  the  beginning  of  the  Anglo- 
Norman  period.  Examples  have  been  given  for  the  Domes- 
day Book^  {Oliver,  Cheure  <  CJiieure)  ;  Oxf.  Psalt:'  {perre, 
requer) ;  Camh.  Psalt}  (seldom,  eel,  sede),  Q.  L.  R.,^  etc. 

Eor  poetry  we  note  the  following  :  Suchier  ^  indicates  that 

1  Cf.  Such.  Zt.  I,  5G9 ;  Franrais  et  Proven<^aU  P-  23,  (in)  Grober's 
Grimdriss,  I,  572 ;  Gram.  pp.  5  and  47  ;  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  1G8, 
§  173  ;  173,  §  179  ;  237,  §  200 ;  Vising,  Zt.  VI,  381.       2  zt.  VIII,  358-359. 

3  Harseim,  p.  281  ;  Zt.  I,  5G9.  *  Schumann,  p.  24. 

5  Schlosser,  pp.  3,  22  ;  Plahn,  p.  5  ;  the  latter  gives  the  proportion- 
ate use  of  ie  and  e  for  Oxf.  Psalt. ,  Camh.  PsaU.  and  Q.  L.  B.  as  follows : 
ie  :  e,  Oxf.  Psalt.  100 :  43  ;   Camh.  Psalt.  100  :  14  ;  ^.  L.  B.  100  :  26. 

6  Auhan^  p.  3 ;  cf.  Uhlemann,  p.  588. 


56     MANUAL  OF. OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

ie  and  e  were  kept  separate  till  after  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century.  About  the  same  date  is  specified  by 
Meyer/  who  says  that  the  rhyme  ie  :  e  became  more  and 
more  frequent  in  England  from  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century.  Suchier,  in  another  place,^  cites  examples  of  the 
confusion  in  Philippe  de  Thaiin's  Cumpoz,  though  the  editor 
of  the  Bestiaire  ^  claims  no  confusion  in  his  text  and  restores 
ie  in  all  cases.  Philippe's  contemporary,  the  author  of  the 
Brandan,  keeps  the  two  separate.'*  Gaimar,  too,  observes 
continental  rules,^  though  one  may  detect  a  tendency  toward 
the  reduction.  From  the  time  of  Fantosme,^  in  any  case, 
instances  of  the  confusion  become  abundant,  though  we  may 
find  occasionally  a  poet  who  evinces  a  preference  for  e :  e,  or 
ie  :  ie.  We  note  ie  :  e  in  Angier  ^  (here,  however,  the  propor- 
tion is  in  favor  of  the  regular  rhymes),  in  Guillaume  de 
Berneville  (examples  *  are  given  only  for  ie  <  palatal  +  a), 
Boeve,^  and  Amaclas}'^ 

2.  Quality  of  E  <  IE.  We  refer,  in  the  first  place,  to 
the  remarks  on  the  e  <  a,  p.  38,  When  Meyer  first  speaks 
of  e  <  ie,^^  he  gives  it  as  close.  Next,  Suchier^^  classes  this  e 
with  that  <  A,  as  e.  Paris  marks  the  e  as  e  in  the  Vie  St. 
Oilles.^^  Meyer  ^^  seems  doubtful  of  the  quality  of  the  e  and 
ie  in  his  edition  of  Angier,  giving  ie  (e),  but  offering  i^  (^)  as 
a  substitute,  saying  there  is  doubt  about  it ;  he  attempts  no 
discussion.     Stimming  ^^  specifies  e. 

3.  Nature  of  the  Diphthong.  As  to  whether  ie  is 
a  rising  or  a  falling  diphthong,  the  point  can  be  made 
clearer  by  comparison  with  the  diphthong  iie  (<  o).  The 
two  are  considered  together,  p.  71. 

1  Bom.  I,  72.  2  Qram.  p.  47.  ^  Walberg,  p.  Ixxxiv. 

4  Such.  Gram.  p.  47.  ^  Vising,  J^tude,  p.  86. 

6  Ibid.  p.  92.  7  Meyer,  p.  194  ;  Cloran,  p.  47. 

^  p.  xxix  ;  cf.  here  the  corrections  of  Mussafia,  Bom.  XI,  594,  who 
reduces  the  number,  already  small.  ^  Stimming,  p.  ix. 

1*^  Andresen,  p.  85.  "  Bom.  I,  72.  i'-  Zt.  II,  293. 

13  p.  xxix.  1*  Bom.  XII,  194.  ^^  Boeve,  p.  ix. 


PHONOLOGY  57 

4.   Orthographic  Variants  of  IE  (E). 

a.  ee.  The  essential  facts  with  regard  to  this  ee  have 
already  been  stated,  p.  41.  A  few  references  may  be  given 
here.^ 

b.  ei.  Examples  for  this  have  been  noted  for  the  Bestiaire  ^ 
and  later  texts.^    In  the  Apocalypse  I  find  teirz,  405,  ceil,  515. 

c.  eie.  This  I  have  found  only  in  Arundel  Fsalt.,*  peiez 
(of.  preiere,  creiendrums).  The  first  e  seems  the  parasitic, 
pretonic  e  described  on  page  61. 

d.  ^.  i  for  ie  occurs  frequently  :  milz,  arire  volentirs,  etc. 
Stimming^  gives  a  list  of  texts  showing  it.  I  find  it  often 
in  Otinel  and  Aspremont,  both  in  the  interior  and  at  the  end 
of  verses :  tirz,  128  (cf.  Olivirs,  58,  chevalirs,  72,  premir,  74, 
etc.),  also  in  the  Fabliau  du  Heron,  mestir,  rivire,^  etc. 

13.  CHECKED   E. 

The  confusion  of  ^  with  e  in  checked  position  has  already 
been  commented  upon,  cf.  p.  53.  The  variant  ei  occurs  for 
^,  too,  in  seit  (septem),  Gaimar.^  In  addition  we  note  ae 
and  ea  which  appear  as  variants  of  ^  alone ;  ae  occurs  often 
in  the  Dialogues  of  Gregory^  {apraes,  engraes,  daestre),  Aiiban, 
saet  (septem),  PUerinage,  bael,  216.  In  Ms.  L.  of  the  Alexis 
we  find  seat  (septem),  which  is  a  borrowing  from  middle 
English.^ 

14.  E  BEFORE  A  PALATAL. 

Here  we  find  for  the  most  part  i,  though  not  infrequently 
ei  (preise  for  pme).  With  regard  to  the  ei  there  is  a  ques- 
tion whether  it  is  a  mere  graphic  variant  of  i,  or  whether  it 
represents  a  sound  other  than  i.    Stimming  gives  examples ;  ^^ 

1  Mall,  Cumpoz,  p.  68  ;  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I,  173,  §  179  ;  Such. 
Gram.  p.  48  ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  202.      2  Walberg,  p.  Ixxxiv. 
3  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  202.  *  Zt.  XI,  530  ;  XII,  6,  45. 

6  Boeve,  p.  202.  ^  Bom.  XXVI,  88. 

7  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  175.  ^  Cloran,  p.  47. 

9  Such.  Zt.  XIX,  81,  f.-n.  10,  Gram.  p.  42.  See  also  under  a  + 
palatal,  p.  46.  ^^  Boeve,  p.  187. 


68  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH   DIALECTS 

we  may  add  those  taken  from  the  Oxf.  Psalt.  (neie),  Camb. 
Psalt.  and  Vie  St.  Gilles}  In  the  latter  text  words  in  which 
E  +  palatal  occur  are  not  found  in  rhymes  in  i,  so  that  Paris 
hesitates  to  say  if  De  Berneville  used  iei,  ie,  ei,  e,  or  i.  Vising, 
ill  his  review,^  says  such  a  state  of  affairs  is  the  result  of 
a  coincidence,  and  that  the  regular  Anglo-Norman  product 
was  i. 

15.  E   BEFORE   A   NASAL. 

1.  Free  Position.  Here  we  find  le  and  e  as  in  the  case 
of  E  +  simple  oral  consonant,  but  we  must  remember  that  in 
Anglo-Norman  the  continental  ie  before  a  nasal  does  not 
suffer  the  reduction  to  e  as  frequently  as  it  does  when 
before  an  oral  consonant. 

a.  Orthographic  variants  (ee,  ei,  i,  eie,  iei).  Stimming^ 
gives  texts  showing  these.  In  Otinel  we  note  bin  {hien)  123, 
and  veint  (vient)  227,  the  latter  also  in  the  Apocalypse,  83, 
137.  The  Brandan  veient^  is  another  example  of  the  para- 
sitic pretonic  e  (cf.  p.  61).  An  example  of  iei  is  furnished 
by  Camb.  Psalt.  mieins,  XVII,  34. 

2.  Checked  Position. 

a.  Variants  {ei,  eie).  The  variant  ei  occurs  for  both  e 
and  ^  in  checked  position  (cf.  p.  57),  dedeins,  leins,  veint. 
A  further  variant  of  the  ei  arises  from  the  addition  to  it  of 
the  parasitic  post-tonic  e,  as  seyens  (ecce  intus).  Cf.  eyens 
(antea)  and  ley  ens  (illac  intus). ^ 

16.  E    (AND    E)    before   L. 

We  have  already  referred  (p.  54)  to  the  confusion  of  e 
with  ^  when  before  I,  the  I  having  a  tendency  to  keep  an 
open  vowel  (cf.  a -{-I,  p.  48).  The  history  of  the  vowel 
before  the  I  must,  of  course,  go  hand  in  hand  with  that  of 
the  I  itself,  which  remains,  for  the  most  part,  in  our  earliest 
texts,  though  the  tendency  to  vocalization  {>  u)  is  to  be 

1  Harseim,  p.  282  ;  Schumann,  p.  25  ;  Paris,  p.  xxx. 

2  Lithlt.  IV,  311.  8  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  203. 

*  Hammer,  p.  91.  ^  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  180  and  185. 


PHONOLOGY  59 

noted  at  a  very  early  date  (cf.  p.  87).  Again,  where  the  I 
is  kept,  we  have  to  distinguish  between  the  cases  in  which 
we  find  the  glide  a  {-eal)  or  simple  -el.  Philippe  de  Thaiin 
did  not  know  of  -eal  <  -el  (according  to  his  two  editors '), 
though  Suchier  ^  cites  eals,  ceals  from  the  Cumpoz  (L.).  The 
Oxf.  Psalt.  has,  as  a  rule,  -el  (oisels),  -eal  occurring  exception- 
ally ^  {chalemeals).  In  Camb.  Psalt^  -eal  is  not  infrequent, 
and  -eols  occurs  too.  Oxf.  EolancV  has  -els,  except  in  one 
instance  (healmes).  The  Q.  L.  R.  ^  has  -els  almost  without 
exception  (beaus  once).  In  the  Branclan  we  find  (by  the 
side  of  older  forms)  oiseiis,  beus,  etc.^  This  -eus  (without  the 
glide)  is  found  in  Norman  and  Anglo-Norman  texts,  seldom 
elsewhere  in  Northern  French.^  After  the  time  of  the  early 
texts  the  combination  e  +  /  -}-  consonant  is  represented  in 
many  different  ways,  older  and  later  forms  being  used  with- 
out apparent  discrimination.  As  a  rule  we  may  say  that 
the  normal  Anglo-Norman  form  was  -eals,  -eaus. 

1.   Variants.    We  have  to  record  the  following  variants. 

a.  eus,  us.  eus  has  just  been  cited  from  Brandan;  exam- 
ples occur  in  Vie  St.  Thomas  (as  II,  47,  beu  sire)  and  Boeve.^ 
The  -us  is  probably  a  development  from  -eus  (cf.  -eol  >  -ol, 
eal  >  al),  and  occurs  only  in  later  texts.  To  Stimming's  list  ^^ 
we  may  add  Ajjocali/j^se  chevus,  52,  452. 

b.  als,  aus.  These  may  be  reductions  from  -eals,  -eaus. 
In  Camb.  Psalt.  we  find  imissals,^^  neiial,  oal;  in  Q.  L.  R., 
halme.^^  We  note  haume  in  Lois  Ouillaume,^^  oisaus  in  Bes- 
tiaire  and  Angier." 

c.  eols,  eous,  ols,  oiis.  Iceols  is  found  in  Camb.  Psalt.  and 
Brandan.  The  o  in  iceols  is  doubtless  a  glide  (like  the  a  in 
-eals) ;  -ols  is  a  development  from  eols ;  in  the  Camb.  Psalt. 

1  Mall,  p.  65 ;  Walberg,  p.  xliii. 

2  Gram.  p.  82.  ^  Harseim,  p.  282.       *  Schumann,  p.  23, 
5  rorster,  Zt.  I,  565.       6  Schlosser,  p.  21.       ^  zt.  I,  565. 

8  Such.  Gram.  p.  81 ;  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I,  163,  §  163. 

9  Stiinming,  p.  174.  i'^  Boeve,  p.  175.  ii  Schumann,  p.  23. 
12  Schlosser,  p.  21.            ^^  Matzke,  p.  xlvi.       i*  Such.  Gram.  p.  81. 


60  MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

we  note  cho.vols  (XXXIX,  15,  LXVIII,  5)  which  is  of  not 
infrequent  occurrence;  Gaimar  has  ous  (tllos).^ 

d.  oels,  Olds,  euls.  In  the  Arundel  Fsalt.  we  have  a  num- 
ber of  variants,  some  of  which  are  not  found  among  the  above. 
We  note :  icoeh,'^  ouls  (couls,  icouls,  common),^  eids,'^  els,  eols,  ols.^ 

17.  PRETONIC  E.  (Here  we  have  no  occasion  to  distin- 
guish between  close  and  open  e.) 

1.   Fall  of  Pretonic  E. 

a.  Before  a  vowel.  The  early  fall  of  pretonic  hiatus  e  in 
Anglo-Norman  is  always  spoken  of  ^  as  characteristic  of  that 
dialect  as  compared  with  French  of  the  continent.  We 
have  to  include  here  ending  accented  forms  of  preterites 
(like  eilmes)  or  imperfect  subjunctives  (like  eust)  which  origi- 
nally had  pretonic  o  in  place  of  the  e  (oilmes,  oilst)  ;  ^  in  the 
Q.  L.  R.,  for  example,  we  find  oust  (monosyllable),  east,  and 
ust.  We  must  take  account  also  of  the  peculiarly  Anglo- 
Norman  contraction  illustrated  in  lele  for  leale,  which  has 
already  been  referred  to  on  page  49  (pretonic  a). 

In  the  Cumpoz  and  Oxf.  Psalt.  we  find  the  e  retained, 
though  in  the  verb  forms  referred  to  the  o  has  weakened 
to  e.  The  Lois  Guillaame  keeps  this  o  consistently  (oust, 
poust,  etc.).^  The  Camb.  Psalt.  and  Q.  L.  B.  show  the  fall, 
while  the  Brandan  and  Gaimar^  retain  the  e.  After  the 
time  of  Fantosme  the  fall  becomes  frequent ;  we  may  say, 
therefore,  that  even  in  Anglo-Norman  the  poets  do  not  regu- 
larly elide  the  e  previous  to  the  thirteenth  century.^^ 

1  Such.  Gram.  p.  82  ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  175.        2  zt.  XI,  516. 

3  Ibid.  XI,  520,  524  ;  XII,  4, 14,  22.     ^  Ibid.  XII,  14.     &  Ibid.  XII,  1. 

6  Of.  for  example.  Bom.  I,  71 ;  XXV,  531 ;  Zt.  I,  5G9;  IV,  419;  Meyer- 
Liibke,  Gram.  I,  319,  §  377  ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  xxxiii  and  178. 

■^  These  forms  were  made  the  object  of  especial  study  by  Suchier, 
Auban,  p.  27.  Paris  summarizes  Suchier's  results  and  gives  the  best 
general  statement  for  the  whole  phenomenon,  in  his  Gme.  de  Berneville, 
p.  xxii.         8  Such.  Litblt.  XXII,  121.         »  Cf.  Vising,  ^tude,  p.  82. 

w  Cf.  Meyer,  Vie  St.  Thomas,  p.  xxix.  Meyer  believes  the  e  is  not 
to  be  elided  in  his  text. 


PHONOLOGY  61 

b.  Before  a  consonant.  The  fall  of  the  e  here  is  even 
more  characteristically  Anglo-Korman  than  that  of  the  pre- 
tonic  e  in  hiatus  ;  the  loss  of  the  latter  e  becomes  general  on 
the  Continent  too,  but  that  of  pretonic  e  before  a  consonant 
does  not.^  For  convenience  of  observation,  we  may  divide 
the  examples  according  as  they  show  the  combination  con- 
sonant -\-  e  -\-  consonant,  or  vowel  -}-  e  +  consonant.  In  the 
former  case  the  second  consonant  is  usually  r,  and  instances 
are  to  be  drawn  mostly  from  futures  and  conditionals  {frai, 
frei,  trouvrai,  durrai),  though  examples  furnished  by  other 
words  are  not  lacking  (as  vigroiis,  pelrin,  and  the  like).^ 
For  vowel  -{-  e  +  consonant  we  note  the  following :  Suchier  ^ 
speaks  of  seira  (<  seiera)  as  one  of  the  Anglo-Norman 
marks  of  the  Oxf.  Psalt.  The  same  fall  of  the  e  occurs  in 
Q.  L.  R.  in  seven  futures  (enveirai  =  enveierai)  by  the  side  of 
twenty-five  which  keep  the  e."*  Stimming^  gives  further 
examples,  like  espuntez  =  espuentez.  The  examples  here  are 
illustrations  of  the  fall  of  the  protonic  syllable,  and  are,  of 
course,  to  be  noted  in  connection  with  the  similar  fall  of  the 
post-tonic  e  after  vowels  (cf.  p.  63). 

2.  Parasitic  Pretonic  E.  The  insertion  of  an  e  where 
it  does  not  belong  etymologically  takes  place  under  the 
same  conditions  as  those  for  which  we  have  just  noted  its 
loss ;  in  fact,  this  process  seems  more  frequent  than  the  loss 
of  the  e.  It  is  not  characteristically  Anglo-Norman,  though 
very  usual  there.  Stimming  treats  of  this  point  at  length.*^ 
The  svarabhactic  e  appears  often  in  futures  and  conditionals, 
and  words  in  general  where  one  of  a  group  of  consonants 
is  r,  perderez,  ferete  (cf.  averil,  Otinel,  46),  though  a  few  ex- 
amples occur  for  other  consonants,  as  sabeloun,  jovene.  The 
e  sometimes  acquires  such  a  value  as  to  have  other  vowels 
substituted  for  it,  as :  fert4  >  ferete  >  ferite  ;  perdrai  >per- 

1  Cf.  Such.  Auban,  pp.  33  and  40 ;  Paris,  Horn.  XXV,  632. 

2  Cf.  Schlosser,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  4  ;  Hammer,  Zt.  IX,  85 ;  Stimming, 
Boeve,  p.  178.         ^  zt.  I,  569.  *  Merwart,  p.  10. 

6  Boeve,  p.  178.  «  Ihid.  pp.  179-181. 


62  MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

derai  >  perdurai  (cf.  perle  >  perele  >  perele,  p.  64).  Stim- 
ming  considers  apart  from  the  cases  just  considered  those 
in  which  the  parasitic  e  appears  before  or  after  vowels  and 
diphthongs,  a.S2Jerdeu  (perdu),  deeyns  (de  intus),  7neit  (misit), 
seonge.  Such  words  call  for  various  explanations  ;  as,  anal- 
ogy, mistakes  of  scribes,  and  the  like.  Doubtless  a  similar 
group  of  examples  is  to  be  added  here,  made  up  of  words  in 
which  the  pretonic  parasitic  e  precedes  the  diphthong  ie,  as 
peiez,  {pieds),  veient  (vient),  etc.     Cf.  pp.  57  and  58. 

3.  Pretonic  E  before  a  Nasal.  Here  we  need  only 
refer  to  Stimming ;  ^  he  distinguishes  cases  in  which  the  e 
occurs  before  a  single  consonant  from  those  in  which  it  is 
found  before  several.  In  either  case  e  interchanges  with  a, 
and  Stimming  says  that  such  is  the  case  particularly  when 
e  precedes  a  single  nasal  consonant.  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  this  statement  will  hold  good,  if  we  take  from  the 
list  of  examples  of  e  before  single  n  the  many  forms  of 
(menacer  >)  manacer,  where  the  a  dates  back  to  Popular 
Latin  times.^  am  —  {an  — )  occurs  often  in  Alexis,  as  am.- 
pairet,  L,  2,  e,  amfant,  L,  5,  b.  In  Arundel  Psalt.  we  note 
anemis.^  It  seems  very  probable  that  the  a  merely  reflects 
the  general  Anglo-Norman  fondness  for  pretonic  a  already 
spoken  of  on  p.  49  and  referred  to  again  in  our  next  paragraph. 

4.  Variants  of  Pretonic  E. 

a.  Phonetic  (a,  i,  o,  u).  We  here  have  to  refer,  in  the 
first  place,  to  our  note  on  pretonic  a  (p.  49,  §  6,  2,  a).  Our 
dialect  has  a  distinct  predilection  for  a  in  this  position, 
original  a  being  sometimes  kept  (chavaler),  or  else  supplant- 
ing etymological  e  (ascient).  Stimming^  gives  examples  of 
the  other  variants,  i,  o,  u,  — ,  which  are  to  be  explained  usu- 
ally by  assimilation,  attraction,  and  the  like.  To  his  instances 
of  u  we  may  add  dumurez  (Auban),^  Nuvers,  espuruns  (Ama- 
das  et  Ydoine),^  jutas,  jutiez  (getter)  from  the  Arundel  Psalt  J 

1  Boeve,  p.  185.  ^  cf.  Nyrop,  Gram.  I,  15,  §  12. 

8  Zt.  XII,  55.  *  Boeve,  p.  177.  ^  Zt.  II,  343. 

6  Ibid.  XIII,  86.  7  Ibid.  XII,  51,  53. 


PHONOLOGY  63 

and  jutta  from  one  of  the  latest  texts,  the  Apocalypse, 
1099.  For  i  we  find  chivaus,  chimin,  etc. ;  for  o,  solum, 
bosoyyie,  etc. 

b.  Orthographic  (eo,  ae,  oe).  The  eo,  which  we  have  already 
recorded  (pp.  43  and  53)  as  a  variant  of  accented  e,  occurs 
for  e  in  pretonic  position  too,  though  not  frequently ;  to 
Stimming's  examples  ^  should  be  added  the  enfeormethe  of  the 
Camh.  Psalt?  We  may  mention  ae  also  which  is  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  Arundel  Psalt. ;  meslaescerai,  baealtet,^  and 
noted  by  Schlosser  *  for  the  Q.  L.  R.  raegnad.  Schumann  ^ 
gives  oe,  as  distinguished  from  ae,  for  the  Camh.  Psalt. 
estoerat,  portoeras,  etc. 

18.    POST-TONIC   E. 

1.   Fall  of  Post-tonic  E. 

a.  After  vowels.^  The  loss  of  the  e  after  vowels  has  been 
cited  as  characteristic  of  our  dialect  since  the  time  of  the 
earliest  studies  on  the  dialect.  In  the  very  first  number  of 
Romania,  Meyer  calls  attention  to  it.  This  loss  swells  to  a 
notable  extent  the  total  of  irregularities  in  Anglo-Norman, 
since  it  brings  about  the  confusion  of  ee:  e  in  participles  or 
substantives ;  it  is  responsible  for  feminine  possessives  like 
mei,  tu  (cf.  p.  118),  and  of  imperfect  endings  -ehit  (for  -eient, 
cf.  p.  124).  As  to  the  time  of  the  fall,  all  agree  that  it  took 
place  earlier  in  Anglo-Norman  than  on  the  continent;  we 
may  place  it  in  the  course  of  the  twelfth  century.  The 
Brandan  is  the  first  poetical  text  with  which  the  phenome- 
non is  usually  associated.  Stimming^  gives  a  list  of  texts 
and  examples.     We  may  add  from  the  Arundel  Psalt.  im- 

1  Boeve,  p.  178.  2  Sucli.  Qvam.  p.  82. 

3  Zt.  XI,  521  ;  XII,  16.  *  p.  37.  ^  p.  27. 

6  The  general  bibliography  on  this  point  is  the  following :  Bom.  I, 
71;  Such.  Auhmh  P-  5;  Koschwitz,  Zt.  II,  482;  Vising,  iStude,  p. 
70  ;  Lithlt.  IV,  311  ;  Meyer-Lubke,  Oram.  I,  261,  §  305  ;  290,  §  340 
{glori,  estudi,  etc.);  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  1  (effect  on  metre);  Nyrop, 
Gram.  I,  210.     For  later  Anglo-Norman,  cf.  Meyer,  Bozon,  p.  Ix. 

7  Boeve,  p.  182. 


64  MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

perfect  forms  like  criou,  humiliou;'^  in  Amadas  et  Tdoine^  we 
note  rai :  saie,  pasme  :  pasynee. 

b.  After  consonants.  The  loss  of  the  e  here,  too,  is  con- 
sidered an  Anglo-Norman  pecnliarity.  It  is  by  no  means  as 
early  as  that  after  vowels,  and  becomes  frequent  only  toward 
the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Suchier  studies  this  point 
in  detail^  and  concludes  that  the  fall  of  e  was  gradual, 
taking  place  first  (and  mostly)  after  r  (already  in  Arimdel 
Psalt}  we  note  sir),  next  after  /  (iiul  =  nule),  finally  after 
m  or  n  (dam,  un  =  dame,  une). 

2.  Parasitic  Post-tonic  E.  Since,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
the  e  fell  in  so  many  cases,  and  with  no  apparent  consistency, 
we  may  readily  conceive  of  the  state  of  uncertainty  among 
our  scribes  as  to  its  proper  use  and  proper  omission ;  we  find 
numbers  of  cases  where  the  post-tonic  e  is  added  with  no 
etymological  right.  Stimming  speaks  of  these  at  length;^ 
examples  are  nule  (masc),  foreste,  and  the  curious  instances 
where  the  e  is  inserted  between  a  stem  and  a  flexional  s  as 
prest(e)s,  coup(e)s,  —  this  being  just  the  contrary  of  the  cases 
where  an  e  with  an  etymological  background  is  omitted,  as 
tuz  {—  TOTAs),  veys  (=  vias),  seys  (=  siAs),  and  the  like. 
We  may  add  some  examples  from  the  Arundel  Psalt.  where 
we  find  the  masculine  participles  tresturnee,  eslevee ;^  meismee,^ 
and  jures  (=  jours). ^  The  parasitic  e  may  have  other  vowels 
substituted  for  it:  as  i  (pans  >  panes  >)  panis,  (Jins  > 
fi7ies  >)j^?iis;  and  u(meilurs  >  meilicres  >)  ineilurus  (Boeve^). 
Cf.  below  (3,  orthographic  variants). 

In  the  Apocalypse  we  note  a  remarkable  perversion  in  the 
example  furnished  by  the  rhyme  p)erele  :  cristele  (line  1297), 
where  the  stages  were  perle  >  p4rele  >  pei'dle  (cf .  p.  61  and 

1  Zt.  XII,  19,  26.  2  ji)icl^  XIII,  86.  »  Auban,  pp.  36-39. 

^  Zt.  XII,  7.  Cf.  also  the  rhymes  cited  by  Meyer,  Bom.  XXV, 
255:  per e  :  primer^  Pol  :  paroles,  cors  :  paroles  from  Descente 
St.  Paul. 

6  Boeve,  pp.  182-183.  e  zt.  XI,  619  ;  XII,  31. 

7  Ibid.  XII,  23.  8  jiid^  XII,  2.  9  Stimming,  p.  184. 


PHONOLOGY  65 

under  the  consonant  r).     In  the  same  text,  line  477,  we  note 
foiez  (=zfois). 

3.  Orthographic  Variants  (i,  u,  a,  oe,  ae).  These  are 
given  by  Stiinming^  as  follows :  i,  meii,  -istis,  -int.  (This  i 
occurs  with  great  frequency  in  Arundel  Psalt. :  chosis,  eglisis, 
taisis,  vindrint^)  ;  u,  trovunt;  a,  ova.  (This  a  for  e  occurs 
in  nearly  every  strophe  of  Alexis  L,  as  nostra,  strophe  3 ; 
tendra,  24 ;  lungament,  69  ;  anames,  122,  etc.)  We  may  add 
also  the  oe  of  the  Camh.  Psalt.  cited  by  Schumann,^  terroe, 
pahnoes.  In  the  printed  edition  (Michel)  we  find  oe  in  the 
last  few  psalms  only ;  elsewhere  ae,  as  sujlae,  XXV,  2 ; 
fuiaent,  XXX,  12,  etc.  (many  cases).  In  the  Arundel  Psalt. 
too,  we  note  ae :  terrae.^ 

I 

19.  I,  TONIC. 

There  is  little  of  importance  to  note  here,  and  I  shall 
merely  make  reference  to  several  points  treated  by  Stim- 
ming.  These  are  the  rhyming  of  i :  e  ; ^  i:u  (cf.  p.  79,  §  32) ; 
comparative  use  of  y  and  i  by  scribes ;  ^  nothing  especial 
arises  in  the  consideration  of  i  before  a  nasal. ^  As  varying 
orthographies  of  ^  we  find  e  (esgles  =  eglise),  ei  {conqueis),^ 
ie  {fiez;  cf.  below,  §  20),  and  we  may  add  the  u  of  the  Q.  L.  M. 
afuhle  <  affihula.^ 

20.  I,  ATONIC. 

Here  we  may  add  to  the  two  variants  given  by  Stim- 
ming;  ^*^  that  is,  e  (dener)  and  ei  (deiables),  three  others  :  ai  of 
Camb.  Psalt.  LXXIII,  14,  daiahles  (cf.  GUI,  26,  daible) ;  oi 
of  Arundel  Psalt.,  foiede,^^  and  ie  of  Vie  Gregoire,  line  1867, 
dierrai  =  dirrai. 

1  Boeve,  pp.  183,  184.  2  zt.  XI,  528 ;  XII,  12, 14,  47. 

3  p.  27.  *  Zt.  XII,  10. 

5  Boeve,  pp.  Iv,  188.  e  jj)i(i  p.  ige. 

'  Boeve,  p.  188.  »  Ibid.  p.  187. 

9  Such.  Gram.  §  11,  a,  6.  10  Boeve,  p.  188.         "  Zt.  XD,  14. 


66  MANUAL   OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 


21.  TONIC  0. 

So  far  as  results,  noted  in  rhymes  or  orthography,  are 
concerned,  we  do  not  have  to  observe  a  distinction  between 
free  and  checked  tonic  q  (except  in  the  case  of  eu  which 
occurs  but  seldom,  cf.  below,  p.  68,  3).  Our  first  poetical 
text,  Cumpoz  (L),  shows  a  distinct  preference  for  keeping 
original  g  in  the  orthography,  and  even  substitutes  the  o  for 
etymological  w  <  tJ  (though  the  examples  given  ^  are  mostly 
for  u  in  pretonic  position) :  jogier,  mors,  etc.  In  Brandan, 
too,  we  have  a  similar  state  of  affairs,^  and  at  a  later  time, 
in  Angier,^  Chardri,  and  Adain,^  we  note  a  tendency  to  keep 
0.  I  record  this  fact  only  for  the  sake  of  historical  com- 
pleteness ;  the  really  important  feature  in  connection  with 
o  is  treated  in  our  next  paragraph. 

1.  U  AND  0.  a.  We  find  u  written  for  o  in  our  earliest 
texts.  In  fact,  such  a  use  must  be  very  old,  though  we  can- 
not accept,  in  its  entirety,  the  reasoning  of  Liicking,^  at 
least  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  Anglo-Norman.  He  argues 
that  the  writing  of  u  for  o  must  have  preceded  the  time  when 
u  (<  u)  began  to  have  the  value  of  il,  since  after  it  signified 
that  value,  scribes  would  not  think  of  using  it  to  designate 
still  another  sound  (that  of  the  u  <  o).  The  use  of  u  for  o 
is  likewise  to  be  found  on  the  continent,  but  it  seems  to 
have  been  favored  nowhere  as  it  was  in  Anglo-Norman.^  No 
difficulty  attaches  to  the  appearance  of  u  for  o  in  prose  or 
in  the  interior  of  verse.  We  find  u  in  the  Cumpoz,^  in  the 
Lois  Guillaume^  (here  o  is  found  in  only  one  word),  in  Oxf. 
Psalt.,^  Camb.  Psalt.,''  and  Q.  L.  R}' 

b.   V/e  have  to  consider,  however,  that  in  some  poetical 

1  Mall,  p.  41.  2  Hammer,  p.  87. 

8  Meyer,  p.  197.  *  Stimining,  Boeve,  p.  100. 

^  Die  AeUesten  Franzosischen  3Iund(irten,  Berlin,  1877,  p.  149. 

6  Such.  Gram.  p.  14.       '^  Mall,  pp.  41,  40,  47,      ^  Matzke,  p.  xlvii. 

^  Harseim,  p.  294.  ^'^  Schumann,  p.  40.         ^^  Schiosser,  p.  49. 


PHONOLOGY  67 

texts  this  u,  as  used  for  o,  rhymes  with  u  <iu',  that  is,  with 
the  ic  which  in  Ile-de-France  had  the  value  of  it.  The  best 
statements  for  this  phenomenon  are  those  of  Suchier.^  In 
the  number  of  the  Literaturblatt  cited  he  gives  a  detailed 
list  of  ten  texts  which  keep  the  two  w's  (<  o  and  <  u)  sepa- 
rate in  rhyme  and  eight  having  the  two  confused.  These 
numbers  should  be  nine  and  nine,  since  Angier  rhymes  the 
two ;  ^  such  a  usage  by  Angier  is  all  the  more  remarkable 
since,  at  best,  he  uses  u  for  o  but  seldom,  even  in  the  inte- 
rior of  the  verse.^  Several  other  texts  are  to  be  added  to  the 
number  of  those  illustrating  the  confusion  in  rhyme.  In 
Vie  St.  Thomas^  we  note  ure  (horam)  :  aventure,  muz 
(mutus)  :  tuz.  Stimming  records  the  same  license  for 
Boeve,^  and  in  the  Bible  Fragment  we  see  nature :  ure  (607), 
hume:  amertume  (609). 

Suchier  counts  the  confusion  as  characteristic  of  North 
Anglo-Norman  as  compared  with  the  Southern  district.  As 
to  the  pronunciation  of  the  two  it's  thus  made  to  rhyme 
together,  we  can  suppose  only  that  both  were  equivalent  to 
Latin  u  (French  ou)  in  pronunciation.  Suchier  specifies  ?«, 
Meyer-Llibke,  it.     I  append  some  references  on  this  point.^ 

2.  Ou.^  oic  was  not  popular  in  early  Anglo-Norman,  and 
in  our  first  texts  the  examples  are  to  be  counted  by  ones 
and  twos ;  the  oldest  instance  is  Cwmpoz  (L)  3305,  pente- 
couste.  Continental  influence  probably  induced  the  use  of 
the  ou  where  found.^    Angier  evinces  special  fondness  for 

1  Auban,  p.  5  (cf.  Zt.  II,  343);  Litblt.  IX,  176. 

2  This  is  Suchier's  own  correction  ;  Gram.  p.  12,  c. 

3  Meyer,  p.  197  ;  Cloran,  p.  47.        *  Introd.  p.  xxviii. 

5  p.  Ivii.  The  reference  on  line  8  of  this  page  is  to  v.  11G3,  and 
not  1193. 

6  Meyer-Llibke,  Gram.  1, 73,  §  48  ;  Mall,  Gump. -p.  47  ;  Walberg,  Best. 
p.  xlvi;  Uhlem.  Aiib.  p.  569;  Nyrop,  Gram.  I,  166;  Vising,  Etude, 
p.  72  ;  Rottiger,  Tristran^  p.  37  ;  Grass,  Adam,  p.  121.  (Here  is  a 
general  review  of  the  subject.) 

'  See  Such.  Gram.  p.  15  (and  his  correction  with  regard  to  Q.  L.  B. 
on  p.  88);  Stim.  Boeve,  p.  190.      ^  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  141,  §  133. 


68  MANUAL  OF  OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

ouy  alternating  it  with  o  (cf.  p.  67),  but  preferring  it  for 
finals  in  -osus.^ 

3.  EU.^  We  find  only  isolated  cases  of  eu  in  Anglo-Nor- 
man ;  Chardri,  pleurent;  ^  Auban,  piteus;  *  and  a  few  in  Boeve,^ 
as  neveii,  pecheurs,  may  be  added  to  the  instances  Suchier 
cites  (cf.  below,  p.  72,  3). 

4.  Orthographic  Variant  of  U.  The  variant  to  be 
noted  here,  ui,  arises  as  follows :  etymological  ui  (<  u,  o, 
6  -t-  palatal)  is  often  reduced  to  u  in  Anglo-Norman  (cf. 
p.  80).  Scribes,  in  their  blundering  attempts  to  be  cor- 
rect, not .  only  restore  this  u  (from  etymological  ui)  to  ?«', 
but  replace  other  it's  (in  this  instance  u  which  is  <  o)  with 
ui ;  the  adjective  hit  is  often  rendered  by  tuit  in  this  way ; 
to  Stimming's  examples^  we  may  add  Arundel  Psalt.,  tuitte 
terrCj  tuit  tuen  sacrijise,''  and  Dialog.  Oreg.^ 

22.   0  BEFORE  A  PALATAL. 

1.  01  AND  0.  The  0  of  oi  was  originally  close  o,  as  in 
general  French,  though  English  words  like  cross  and  voice 
show  that  Anglo-Norman  knew  open  o  too;  cross  is  an 
example  of  the  reduction  of  (^i  to  ^;  vqiz  seems  to  occur 
in  our  earliest  texts. 

2.  UI  AND  U.  The  ui,  which  is  the  rule  in  our  earliest 
texts,  reflects  the  original  qi ;  it  is  to  be  seen  in  Cumpoz,^ 
Oxf.  Psalt.^^  Camb.  Psalt.^^  Q.  L.  R.,^^  etc.  In  Auban  we  find 
the  writing  oid}^  There  are  but  few  instances  of  the  reduc- 
tion of  ui  (for  oi)  to  u.  Stimming"  cites,  for  example,  cruz, 
angusse,  and  (perhaps)  conu. 

1  Meyer,  p.  197.  ^  gee  Such.  Gram.  pp.  29  and  3L 

3  Zt.  Ill,  593.  *  4  Uhlemann,  p.  669. 

6  Stimming,  p.  190.  «  Boeve,  p.  190. 

7  Zt.  XII,  46,  2.  8  cioran,  p.  48. 

9  Mall,  pp.  60,  61,  63,  65.       lo  Harseim,  p.  296. 
11  Schumann,  p.  42.  12  Schlosser,  p.  61. 

18  Uhlemann,  p.  686.  "  Boeve,  p.  205. 


PHONOLOGY  69 

23.    0  BEFORE  A  NASAL. 

Before  a  nasal  there  is  no  distinction,  so  far  as  results 
are  concerned,  among  free  o,  checked  o,  free  o  (in  those 
cases  in  which  it  does  not  diphthongize,  for  whatever  reason) 
and  checked  o,  as  all  rhyme  together.  Texts  are  mentioned 
by  Stimming ;  ^  add  the  Bestiaire,^  and  in  Vie  Gregoire,  line 
1683,  we  note  om :  region  (cf.  Cumpoz,  line  251,  hume  :  nune). 

1.  On  and  Un.  a.  We  find  the  same  interchange  of 
0  and  i(.  here  as  in  the  case  of  oral  consonants,  but  the 
proportion  is  different;  before  a  nasal,  u  is  used,  almost 
to  the  exclusion  of  o  in  orthography,  even  by  Angier,^  who 
otherwise  favors  o  or  ou  (cf.  p.  67).  We  refer  here  to  Liher 
Censualis,^  Oxf.  Psalt.,^  Camb.  Psalt.,^  Amadas/  Auhan,^  etc. 
Boeve  forms  the  exception,  since  on  is  there  preferred.^ 

b.  The  It  (<  o  4-  nasal)  may  rhyme  with  w  <  u  -h  nasal  as 
the  two  i«'s  do  before  oral  consonants.  In  fact,  the  first 
examples  for  the  rhyming  of  the  two  are  when  they  precede 
nasals,  and  not  orals.  These  examples  are  Brandaii,  uns  : 
compaignuns,^^  Gaimar,  i^n  :  incarnaciun}^ 

2.  OuN.  This  is  not  a  development  to  be  compared  with 
that  of  a  +  nasal  >  aun.  The  ou,  as  used  before  nasals,  is 
doubtless  an  extension  of  the  ou  already  spoken  of  (p.  67, 
§  21,  2),  which  was  borrowed  from  Continental  French. 
Koschwitz  i^  made  a  study  of  the  point,  and  indicates  that 
the  development  may  have  been  o  >  ou  >  u.  Our  texts, 
however,  do  not  substantiate  this  theory;  ou  appeared  at 
a  comparatively  late  date.  The  first  example  I  have 
noticed  is  that  in  Chardri,^^  Ms.  V  (thirteenth  to  fourteenth 
century,  cf .  p.  22) ;  a  few  occur  in  Boeve "  (ount,  vount, 
fount)  and  Auhan}^ 

1  Boeve,  p.  liii.  ^  Walberg,  p.  xlvi.         '  Cloran,  p.  48. 

4  Zt.  VIII,  358.  5  Harseim,  p.  295.  ^  Schumann,  p.  4L 

7  Andresen,  p.  86.        ^  Ulilemann,  p.  575.       ^  Stimming,  p.  19L 

10  Koschwitz,  Zt.  II,  34.3.  "  Kupferschmidt,  p.  417. 

12  Ueberlieferiing,  p.  32  ss.  i^  Koch,  p.  xxxi. 

"  Stimming,  p.  192.  i^  Uhlemann,  p.  569. 


70  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

9 

The  definite  history  of  many  of  the  phenomena  arising  in 
a  study  of  o  in  Anglo-Norman  is  yet  to  be  written.  One 
cannot  read  what  has  been  proposed  and  then,  after  an 
observation  of  the  examples  for  himself,  be  satisfied  that 
the  last  word  has  been  said.  I  offer  some  fragmentary 
suggestions  on  various  points,  hopiug  thereby  to  invite 
attention  to  and  discussion  of  them.  A  final  solution 
demands  a  careful  and  detailed  study  of  o  in  all  the  texts ; 
such  a  study  will  surely  bear  fruit.^ 

24.   0,  UE,  EU,  U,  AND  E. 

1.  0.  The  keeping  of  o  in  the  undiphthongized  (by  the 
side  of  the  diphthongized)  form  is  characteristic  of  Anglo- 
Norman.  We  find  o  in  our  older  texts,  though  not  with 
consistent  frequency;  for  example,  in  Omiipoz'^  and  Bes- 
tiaire;^  in  Lois  Guillaume^  (pojjle,  pot,  quor,  etc.),  to  the 
entire  exclusion  of  ue  or  oe;  in  the  Psalters  o  is  found, 
though  not  in  the  majority  of  cases  ^  (in  Arundel  Psalt. 
we  note  qiior^),  while  in  the  Q.  L.  R.  o  prevails  in  the 
proportion  of  four  to  one.^  We  refer  to  examples  of  o  in 
later  texts,  as  follows :  Angier,^  Chardri,^  Gme.  de  Berneville,^^ 
and  Amadas}^  (For  oi  <  o  +  palatal,  cf.  below,  p.  80, 
§  33,  2.) 

2.  UE.  This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  upon,  or  even  to 
refer  to,  the  extensive  bibliography  of  the  interesting  gen- 
eral questions  as  to  the  history  of  the  diphthongs  ue  <  o  and 

1  The  points  following  may  be  found,  amplified  in  some  cases,  in  an 
article  in  Mod.  Lang.  Notes,  XVIII,  lOG-111. 

2  Mall,  pp.  47,  48.  »  Walberg,  p.  Ixxxv. 

*  Matzke,  p.  xlvii.  ^  Harseim,  p  292  ;  Schumann,  p.  33. 

6  Zt.  XI,  624,  525,  52G ;  XII,  16. 

'  riiilin,  p.  5.  8  Meyer,  p.  19G  ;  Cloran,  p.  48. 

9  Koch,  p.  xxviii  (cf.  Zt.  Ill,  593).  lo  Paris,  p.  xxxi. 

^1  Zt.  XIII,  85.     For  a  general  statement,  cf.  Such.  Gram.  p.  41. 


PHONOLOGY  71 

ie  <  E  (on  p.  56  we  referred  to  the  present  section  for  a  con- 
sideration of  the  latter)  :  whether  the  u  of  ue  was  pronounced 
ou  or  ii ;  whether  the  diphthong  was  rising  or  falling ;  when 
the  pronunciation  o  (Mod.  Fr.  eu)  came  in,  and  the  like. 
This  latter  point  is  particularly  difficult  to  decide  for  Anglo- 
Norman,  both  on  account  of  the  great  confusion  of  orthog- 
ra^jhies,  and  because  the  eu  to  which  we  are  accustomed  in 
French  texts  of  the  continent  is  extremely  rare  in  Anglo- 
Norman  (cf.  just  below,  no.  3).  We  have  reason  to  suppose 
that,  for  a  time  at  least,  ue  had  a  double  value  in  Anglo- 
Norman,  that  is,  u-e  and  6}  The  earliest  text  for  which 
I  note  the  pronunciation  o  claimed  for  ue  is  Chardri.^  (There 
is  evidence,  however,  that  the  sound  6  existed  earlier;  cf. 
below,  6,  e.) 

As  to  whether  ue  and  ie  were  rising  or  falling  diphthongs 
it  is  difficult  to  discover  essential  facts  on  which  to  base 
conclusions.  We  have  already  seen  (p.  55)  that  e  for  ?e 
is  a  leading  Anglo-Norman  characteristic ;  this,  of  course, 
points  to  a  pronunciation  ie.  We  shall  see  below  (no.  4) 
that  u  occurs  for  ue  ;  this  points  to  a  pronunciation  ue.  The 
Oxf.  Psal,  where  we  find  marks  of  accentuation,  renders 
ie  by  i^,  ue  by  both  ue  and  ue.  It  seems  as  if  the  stress  must 
have  varied  at  different  periods  of  the  language,  or  with  dif- 
ferent scribes  or  in  some  other  (unknown)  way;  such  was 
obviously  the  case  in  our  dialect  where  we  have  ue,  u,  e ;  ie, 
i,  e;  theorists  on  the  original  nature  or  state  of  these 
diphthongs  must  seek  their  data  outside  of  Anglo-Norman 

lines.^ 

An  important  point  to  be  observed  with  regard  to  ue  in 
Anglo-Norman  is  that  it  may  rhyme  with  e,  and  thus  give 
rise  to  a  set  of  rhymes  whose  exact  parallel  is  not  to  be 
found  on  the  continent;    such  rhymes  are  quer:    honurer, 

1  Koschwitz,  Ueberlieferung,  pp.  29,  73, 

2  Koch,  p.  xxviii. 

3  For  general  remarks  here,  cf.  Suchier,  Zt.  I,  291 ;  Gram.  pp.  40 
and  48  ;  Nyrop,  Litblt.  I,  223. 


72  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

chanter,  coimter.     They  are  to  be  foimd  in  Auban,  Donnei, 
Bozon,  and  other  texts.^ 

3.  EU.  AVe  have  already  referred  to  the  rarity  of  eu  for 
o  (§  21,  3),  and  we  shall  have  to  record  still  fewer  cases  of 
eu  for  (ue)  q.  Stimming  ^  gives  seut,  veiit  (in  which,  however, 
the  u  may  represent  an  I  which  has  vocalized),  queur,  peuple, 
veuUe,  petit,  demeure.  [demeure  should  not  be  included  here, 
as  its  0  was  o.^]  We  have  to  study  separately  each  word 
and  text  to  determine  approximately  the  phonetic  value  of 
the  eu.  For  the  Vie  Thomas,  for  example,  Meyer  ^  assigns 
different  values  to  the  eu,  according  as  it  represents  general 
French  ue  (vent)  or  g  {eurent  =  orent). 

4.  U.  u,  representing  o,  has  always  been  recognized  as  a 
marked  Anglo-Norman  characteristic ;  it  is  found  in  Philippe, 
Oxf.  Psalt.,  Q.  L.  R.,  and  Brandan,  among  our  earlier  texts : 
buf,  put,  vult,  uvrent,  etc.^  Our  dialect  is  apparently  the 
only  one  in  which  we  find  an  q  represented  by  an  u.  How- 
ever, if  we  look  upon  the  u  as  a  reduction  of  the  diphthong 
ue,  and  not  as  a  variant  of  undiphthongized  o,  there  is  noth- 
ing striking  about  the  u.  In  the  earlier  stages  of  Anglo- 
Norman  studies  the  u  was  treated  as  such  a  variant  of  o,^ 
and  this  might  seem  natural  enough  in  view  of  the  fact  of 
the  Anglo-Norman  fondness  for  keeping  the  o  (cf.  p.  70, 
§  24,  1),  which  is  itself  a  distinct  peculiarity.  Considering, 
however,  what  we  have  already  said  as  to  the  breaking  up 
of  the  diphthongs  ue  and  ie  into  u,  e  and  i,  e,  it  seems  more 

1  Cf.  Stiirzinger,  Orth.  Gall  p.  46  ;  Paris,  Rom.  XXV,  632 ;  Meyer, 
Bozon,  p.  lix,  3.  2  Boeve,  p.  208. 

3  Cf.  Zt.  II,  509  and  Paris,  Gme.  de  Berneville,  p.  xxxi,  foot-note  1. 
Stimming  gave  demeur  under  o  on  p.  190.  On  p.  208  he  is  citing  from 
Stiirzinger,  who  (wrongly)  gives  q. 

4  Introd.  p.  xxix.     Cf.  touz :  lens  (locum),  Apoc.  1.  309. 

6  Cf.  Grober,  Zt.  II,  509  ;  Meyer-Liiblce,  Gram.  I,  202,  §  217  ;  Such. 
Frangais  et  Proven(;al,  p.  23,  (in)  Grober's  Grundriss,  I,  572  ;  Gram. 
p.  41  ;  Stim.  Boeve,  p.  208. 

6  Cf.  for  example,  Mall.  Cumpoz,  p.  50  ;  Fichte,  Camb.  Psalt.  p.  63  ; 
Zt.  II,  481. 


PHONOLOGY  73 

probable,  to  the  present  writer,  that  the  u  in  question  is  out 
of  ue.  I  know  of  no  suggestion  that  i  (for  ie  <  e)  is  a  vari- 
ant of  E,  and  yet  the  history  of  ie  and  ue  must  have  been 
the  same  in  many  particulars.  It  seems  to  me  that  to  claim, 
even  in  Anglo-Norman  (where  I  admit  all  kinds  of  irregu- 
larities), an  u  for  a  free  tonic  o  before  oral  consonants,  is 
going  too  far.  With  ue  so  constant  a  product  in  general 
French  and  in  Anglo-Norman,  too,  explanations  of  any 
phase  of  the  history  of  9  that  do  not  take  ue  into  account, 
where  possible,  are  hazardous.  Surely,  when  we  confront 
vult  with  vuelt,  it  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  vult  a  later 
form  of  vuelt  than  to  think  that,  with  no  apparent  reason,  o 
went  two  different  ways,  becoming  u,  in  vult,  diphthongizing 
in  vuelt. 

There  are  cases  in  which  the  ue  can  have  played  no  part, 
and  where  we  have  evident  confusion,  or  interchange,  of 
orthographies  by  the  scribes.  These  are  given  by  Stim- 
ming :  ^  vult  (voluit),  nus  (noster),  etc.,  and  the  imperfect 
endings  -ue,  -ut,  for  -oe,  -oue.     (Cf.  below,  p.  123,  §  64,  1.) 

5.  E.  e  for  ue  is  said  to  be  characteristically  Anglo- 
Norman,  too.  There  is  little  specific  discussion  on  the  time 
difference  between  the  e  and  the  u  as  used  for  ue.  Meyer- 
Ltibke  ^  treats  of  ue  >  e  first,  saying  that  it  occurs  early, 
then  goes  on  to  say,  ''One  is  surprised  to  find  u  also  for  ue,''^ 
as  if  e  were  the  more  characteristic  or  usual.  Stimming^ 
says  ue  >  e,  especially  after  the  year  1200.  If  what  I  have 
said  above  (No.  4)  as  to  the  derivation  of  u  from  ue  is  cor- 
rect, it  follows  that  I  must  consider  the  original  accentuation 
of  the  diphthong  to  have  been  ue,  and  therefore  any  time 
difference  must  be  in  favor  of  u  as  older  than  e.  Any  such 
difference  in  Anglo-Norman  is  merely  relative,  and  we  need 
not  suppose  that  u  was  used  regularly  for  a  period  of  years 
and  that  afterward  e  came  in ;  the  difference  was  doubtless 
slight,  and  the  use  of  the  one  or  the  other  depended  on  the 

1  Boeve,  p.  189.    Cf.  voult  in  Vie  St.  Edmond,  1.  454. 

2  Gram.  1,  202,  §  217.  »  Boeve,  p.  Iviii. 


74  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

circumstances  which  influenced  each  individual  scribe.  The 
texts  cited  by  Stiirzinger  and  Stimming^  for  e  are  compara- 
tively late,  Adgar,  Angier,  Auban,  etc.  {em,  fleves,  sell,  velt, 
etc.).  I  note  hem  (and  in  tonic  position)  in  Arundel  Psalt} 
6.    Orthographic  Variants. 

a.  oe.  This  is  found  with  great  frequency  in  Norman 
and  Anglo-Norman  texts,  particularly  at  the  beginning  of 
words,  and  is  supposably  a  device  of  the  scribes  to  distin- 
guish ue  (  =  ue  <o)  from  ue  (  =  ve),  by  designating  the 
former  as  oe.^     Cf.  p.  70. 

b.  oi  (ni).  oi  is  an  orthography  which  occurs  quite  fre- 
quently. Stimming*  gives  examples  from  Brandan,  Tristan, 
Chardri,  Boeve,  and  a  few  other  texts,  as  estoit  (estuet),  voit 
(volet),  poit  (puet),  etc.  (He  omits  the  one  from  Cumpoz 
L,  cited  by  Suchier,^  bois  <  b5ves.)  Stimming  suggests 
that  we  have  here  a  case  of  "  umgekehrte  Schreibung  "  (as 
in  i'e  =  e  <  A  cf.  p.  39)  ;  he  starts  from  the  forms  estet,  vet, 
pet,  etc.  These  the  scribe  ignorantly  restores  (?)  to  estoit, 
voit,  poit,  because  he  confuses  them  with  derivatives  of  origi- 
nal e  ( <  E,  i),  for  which  oi  was  the  proper  continental  equiva- 
lent (and  by  no  means  foreign  to  Anglo-Norman;  cf.  p.  50). 
This  explanation  does  not  appeal  to  me,  though  I  do  not 
insist  on  my  own  way  of  considering  the  variant  in  question. 
It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  scribes  had  confused  the  e  of  ue 
with  the  e  of  ei  <  e,  we  might  look  for  some  other  variant 
of  the  letter  e,  and  certainly  for  ei  rather  than  oi,  which  is  not 
a  regular  Anglo-Norman  product  (cf.  p.  50).  No  ei  (ai)  is 
recorded,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  as  a  variant  of  the  e  for  ue, 
though  it  occurs  for  every  other  Anglo-Norman  e  (as  for 
e  <  A,  p.  40,  and  for  e,  p.  57).  Furthermore,  the  e  for  ue 
seems  to  have  been  comparatively  late  (cf.  p.  73)  and  not 
particularly  frequent.  I  prefer  to  use  as  starting-points 
toward  poit,  estoit,  the  forms  2)ot,  estot,  which  are  present  in 

1  Boeve,  p.  208.  2  zt.  XII,  23,  24. 

8  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  19G,  198,  §211  ;  Litblt.  I,  223. 

*  Boeve,  p.  208.  ^  Gram.  p.  41. 


PHONOLOGY  75 

Anglo-Norman  from  the  beginning  (cf.  p.  70).  These  dwt, 
estot)  the  scribe  changed  to  poit,  estoit,  just  as  he  corrected 
(?)  other  simple  vowels  by  adding  i  (a  >  ai,  e  >  ei,  u  >  id, 
cf.  pp.  50,  53,  and  6S)  on  account  of  the  frequency  with  which 
his  eye  encountered  ai,  ei,  ui  which  had  developed  from  a, 
e,  u  (o,  o)  before  palatals.  To  my  mind  oi  for  q  corresponds 
to  ui  for  0  (it).     For  oi  <q  -{-  palatal,  cf.  p.  80,  §  30. 

The  ui  which  Stimming  cites  for  only  one  text  {Ipome- 
don)  doubtless  reflects  the  scribe's  pronunciation  of  the  oi 
(i.e.  oi)  which  is  often  used  by  him  for  o. 

c.  eo.  We  have  already  noted  (p.  53)  the  use  of  eo  for 
checked  e.  We  find  eo  likewise  for  ue  (or  rather  for  a  de- 
velopment of  o)  before  oral  and  nasal  consonants  (cf.  below, 
§  29),  and  as  so  used  it  constitutes  another  peculiarity  of 
Anglo-Korman  manuscripts :  Oxf.  Psalt.,  Camh.  Psalt.  veolt, 
eovre  ;  Arund.  Psalt.  veolt,^  Eoland  deol,  etc.^  It  may  seem 
illogical  not  to  treat  eo  =  -e  and  eo  =  o  together ;  we  can 
easily  conceive  of  the  pronunciation  e-o  for  the  eo  <  e 
(fe-orm)  because  the  o  can  be  considered  as  a  glide  sound ; 
we  might  think  of  eo  in  deol  or  veolt  or  Jieom  as  being  simi- 
larly pronounced,  the  o  being  a  glide  from  the  e  to  ^  or  m ; 
but,  as  I  have  indicated  on  previous  pages,  examples  from  our 
texts  do  not  show  that  e  for  ue  was  early  enough  or  frequent 
enough  to  allow  us  to  take  it  as  a  basis  for  explaining  early 
variants  (like  the  present  eo,  or  like  the  oi  treated  in  the 
previous  section)  of  the  developments  of  o.  In  order  to  dis- 
cover the  value  of  the  sound  indicated  by  eo  (for  ue),  one 
safe  method  is  to  observe  other  signs  used  for  ue  in  the  texts 
in  which  oe  occurs,  especially  other  signs  of  known  value. 
Those  of  (supposedly)  known  value  are  e  and  o,  the  latter 
usually  being  taken  to  indicate  a  sound  like  modern  French 
eit ;  such  a  value  for  eo  (i.e.  eu)  was  suggested  very  early.^ 

1  Zt.  XII,  24. 

2  For  texts  and  examples,  cf.  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  207,  208  ;  Such. 
Gram.  p.  41 ;  Zt.  I,  669  ;  Stiirzinger,  Orth.  Gall.  pp.  44-46. 

8  Koschwitz,  Ueherlieferung,  p.  29. 


76  MANUAL   OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Again,  there  is  no  question  but  that  eo  was  used  as  the 
equivalent  of  a  known  e  (cf.  p.  53)  at  one  time  (though  not 
in  earliest  Anglo-Norman),  just  as  ea  was  used  for  ^}     Con- 
sequently we  might  say  that  at   one  time  (comparatively 
early)    eo   was   equivalent  to  eit,  at  another   (later)   to  e. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  latter  use  of  eo  (for  e),  but 
I  question  the  conclusiveness  of  the  opinions  that  assign  a 
value  ^-0,  or  eu,  to  eo  for  the  earlier  stages  of  the  xinglo- 
Norman.     I  would  suggest  the  following  :  The  regular  rep- 
resentatives   of  o  in  Anglo-lSTorman  were   o,  eu,  it,   and  e. 
The  appearances  of  o,  o,  0,  and  eo  coincide;   o,  o,  and  eo 
were  devices  of  the  scribes  to  indicate  a  sound  of  o  that  was 
not  the  simple  q,  nor  yet  the  distinct  diphthong  ue,  but  an 
approach  to  a  diphthong  which   the  scribe  did  not   know 
exactly  how  to  designate.     Between  q  and  ue  there  existed 
another  development  for  o,  just  as  between  §  and  ie  there 
was  an  indefinite  ee  (cf.  p.  41).     This  indefinite  sound  for  q 
was  the  one  our  scribes  were  trying  to  fix,  and  the  various 
signs  used  (o,  o,  and  eo)  reflect  their  uncertainty.     It  seems 
to  me  that  oe  too  might  well  have  originated  in  the  same 
way ;  that  is,  as  a  graphic  sign  for  the  indefinite  sound  re- 
ferred  to.      Later,  it   found  a  fixed  place   in  orthography 
because  it  lent  itself  to  indicating  a  necessary  distinction 
between  ue  and  ve  (cf.  p.  74). 

d.  ou.  Stimming  gives  an  example  of  ou  from  Boeve, 
-sour  (soror),  soure,  and  refers  to  bouf  (bovem)  in  William 
of  Palermo. 

e.  ^.  This  sign  occurs  in  Camh.  Psalt.,  il<pc,  ]p<t>ple,  etc.* 
Suchier  speaks  of  it  as  indicating  the  sound  b  (eu)*  Cf.  my 
remarks  above  (c). 

f.  6.  Examples  for  this  have  been  cited  ^  for  the  Oxf. 
Psalt.  only:  pd2'>le,  reproce,  oil,  and  oVie.  Compare  my  re- 
marks above  (c). 

1  Such.  Gram.  p.  42.  2  Boeve,  p.  208.  »  Such.  Gram.  p.  41. 

*  Cf.  Vising,  Jhrsbrcht.  II,  1,  250. 
5  Such.  Gram.  p.  41. 


PHONOLOGY  77 

25.  CHECKED   p. 

Here  we  make  note  of  two  points :  the  presence  of  on  for 
the  Q,  and  the  rhyming  of  q :  o. 

1.  ou.  It  goes  without  saying  that  checked  o  remains  in 
most  cases.  Stimming  ^  finds  only  one  example  of  ou :  toust 
from  Boeve  and  Bozon.  I  add  cours  (cordibus)  from  Arund. 
Psalt.^  Stimming  thinks  that  the  word  oustent  (obstant, 
Boeve)  may  point  to  an  u  (g)  as  a  phonetic  variant  of  checked 
Q  in  Anglo-Norman.     This  point  demands  further  study. 

2.  0:0.  Aside  from  the  cases  in  which  the  q  occurs  be- 
fore a  nasal  (cf.  p.  78,  §  23),  there  is  little  evidence  in  favor 
of  such  a  rhyme.  Mall  had  supposed  that  such  might  be 
the  case  for  the  Oumpoz  and  Bestiaire,  but  Walberg  ^  affirms 
that  the  q  rhymes  only  with  itself  in  the  Bestiaire  and  cor- 
rects Mall's  examples. 

26.  LOCUM,  FOCUM,  JOCUM. 

I  do  not  attempt  to  say  anything  new  about  the  various 
forms  of  these  words,  but  shall  simply  refer  to  places  where 
the  Anglo-Norman  variants  (lieu,  liu,  leu,  etc. ;  gieu,  giu,  ju, 
geu,  etc. ;  fe^i,  fii,  fou,  etc.)  are  especially  mentioned  or  dis- 
cussed.^ 

I  shall,  however,  call  attention  to  the  form  ltd  (lids).  No 
mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  bibliography  cited,  except  by 
Stimming,  who  finds  one  example  of  milui  in  Boeve  and 
supposes  it  may  be  another  case  of  "umgekehrte  Schrei- 
bung  "  (hi  >  lui,  confusion  with  etymological  ui,  cf.  p.  68). 
The  cases  of  its  occurrence,  however,  seem  sufficiently 
numerous  to  justify  our  giving  lui  a  place  beside  the  other 
variants  of  locum  in  Anglo-Norman;  perhaps  it  is  worthy 

1  Boeve,  p.  189.  2  zt.  XI,  515.  ^  jj^f-^^  xi,  xlv. 

4  The  best  short  statement  for  them  in  Anglo-Norman  (and  Norman) 
is  that  of  Sucli.  Gram.  pp.  5.3  and  56.  Cf.  in  this  connection  Meyer- 
Ltibke,  Gram.  T,  190,  §  196  ;  LTilemann,  Auban,  p.  572  (here  we  find 
additional  bibliography) ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  204  ;  Walberg,  Besdaire, 
p.  xlvii  ;  Busch,  Laiit-  und  Formenlehre,  p.  35. 


78  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

of  further  study,  too.  I  note  the  following :  Arundel  Psalt. 
lui^  (in  connection  with  ltd  the  form  lai'^  <  lacum  is  to  be 
observed) ;  Brandan,  1.  86  ;  Denis  Py  ramus,  Vie  St.  Edmond, 
1.  729,  lid  (not  in  rhyme) ;  Madeleine,  7,  d,  luis,  and  10,  c, 
hds:plids;  Apocalypse:  milui,  218  (p.  208),  lid-.celui,  340, 
247  (p.  209),  luisitidz,  310  (p.  211),  luiifui  (past,  particip. 
of  fuir),  948;  one  example  of  fu  (preterite  of  itre)  :  fui 
(focum),  843  (p.  232). 

27.  0   BEFORE   A  PALATAL. 

We  shall  treat  the  id  arising  from  this  combination  in 
connection  with  the  similar  ui  <  u  before  a  palatal,  p.  80, 
§  33.     There,  too,  will  be  considered  the  variant  oi. 

28.  Q   BEFORE   L   MOUILLEE. 

Here  Anglo-Norman  offers  nothing  new.  I  note  the  form 
orguoil  in  the  Arundel  Psalt^  (cf.  orguel^) ;  in  Angier  (1.  32) 
we  find  the  reduction  of  ue  to  e  in  veil  =  vueil. 

29.  0   BEFORE   A   NASAL. 

I  considered  o  before  a  nasal  in  connection  with  o  before 
a  nasal  in  those  cases  in  which  o  did  not  diphthongize  (cf. 
p.  69).  It  does  not  diphthongize  when  checked,  of  course, 
and  even  in  free  position  o  alternates  in  about  equal  pro- 
portion with  ue.  The  use  of  these  two  in  our  earlier  texts 
is  given  by  Suchier.^  We  find  u  (Jimne)  and  e  (hem),  too, 
just  as  before  oral  consonants.^ 

Examples  of  the  usual  variants  for  o  before  consonants 
occur  here  also.  We  note  oe  in  Arundel  Psalt. :  hoens,  soens;  ^ 
eo  is  found,  as  in  Camb.  Psalt.  and  Q.  L.  P. :  heom,  seon ; 
the  Q.  L.  R.  shows  ueo  also :  hueom.^  Stimming  finds  one 
or  two  examples  of  ou  (^moun)  and  ui  (suyn)  in  Boeve. 

1  Zt.  XII,  11.      2  iiifi  XII,  U.       3  /ftiVi.  XI,  529.       *  Ibid.  XII,  19. 
^  Gram.  pp.  73,  74.     Add  Lois  Gme.  p.  xlvii. 

6  Cf.  Oxf.  Psalt.  (Harseim,  p.  203),  Camb.  Psalt.  (Schumann,  p.  3G), 
Q.  L.  li.  (Schlosser,  p.  43),  Angier,  Aiiban,  Boeve;  Stimming,  p.  209. 

7  Zt.  XII,  23,  39.  8  Such.  Gram.  p.  74  ;  Zt.  I,  569. 


PHONOLOGY  79 

30.  9  BEFORE   N  MOUILLEE. 

Suchier^  treats  this  point.  There  are,  apparently,  only 
two  words  of  importance  to  be  discussed,  cognitum  and 
LONGE  +  s.  In  queinte,  the  uei  is  kept  (u  going  with  the  q)  ; 
I  note  an  additional  example  of  queinte  in  Pyramiis,  St. 
Edmond,  1.  934 ;  lueinz  does  not  occur  but  may  be  supposed 
from  luein  (Camb.  Psalt.  IX,  21). 

31.  PRETONIC   0. 

We  have  already  noted  (p.  66,  §  21)  the  tendency  of  some 
of  our  earlier  texts  to  keep  o  pretonic,  and  have  seen  that 
they  may  even  substitute  this  o  for  an  original  u  <^fj.  For 
pretonic  o  we  find  the  usual  variants,  u  and  ou,  before  both 
oral  and  nasal  consonants  :  cf .  in  the  Arundel  Pscdt.  for  exam- 
ple, oureilles,  bounourez.^  The  variants  i  and  e  are  likewise 
to  be  noted  (connisez,  apresmer).^  For  the  fall  of  the  pre- 
tonic 0  in  hiatus  in  verb  forms  {oust,  etc.),  cf.  p.  60,  §  17, 1,  a. 
(These  remarks  apply  equally  to  q  and  o,  since  ^  becomes  o 
in  pretonic  position.) 

IT 

32.  1.  U :  0  AND  U :  I.  There  are  two  points  to  be  noted 
here,  the  rhyming  oi  il-.u  (p)  and  that  of  il :  i.  We  have 
already  considered  the  former  (p.  Q>Q)  and  referred  to  the 
phonetic  value  of  the  u  <xj.  Obviously  we  cannot  claim  a 
pure  ii  for  the  entire  period  of  Anglo-Norman,  or  in  any 
case  for  the  entire  territory  which  that  dialect  represents. 

The  rhyming  of  il-.i  deserves  attention,  more  on  account 
of  its  apparent  peculiarity  than  its  frequency.  The  refer- 
ences for  it  are  given  by  Stimming.^  Already  in  the  Cum- 
poz  we  have  lune  :  embolisme.  We  may  add  an  example 
from  Vie  Gregoire,  line  439  :  truisses  :  peiisses.    Vising  ^  says 

1  Gram.  p.  75.  2  zt.  XI,  528,  XII,  20. 

8  Examples  and  texts  are  given  by  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  205. 

*  Boeve,  p.  Ivi.  £tude,  p.  73. 


80  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

that  the  i  indicates  nothing  with  regard  to  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  ti  (<  u)  in  Anglo-Norman.  The  scribes,  not 
accustomed  to  hearing  the  French  u,  confounded  it  with  i ; 
moreover,  it  seems  that  the  examples  here  are  in  part  taken 
from  verb  endings,  w^iere  -is,  -it,  -irent,  and  the  like  could 
easily  replace  -us,  -nt,  -urent,  etc.,  by  analogy. 

2.  Orthographic  Variants  (UI,  0).  The  ui  for  il  has 
already  been  referred  to  (p.  68).^  (For  the  opposite,  i.e.  it 
instead  of  etymological  ui,  see  below,  §  33.)  Where  there 
is  a  confusion  of  u  (u)  and  u  (o)  we  are  not  surprised  to  find 
0  substituted  at  times  for  etymological  u  (  <  u),  though  ex- 
amples are,  apparently,  not  numerous :  ^  josque,  couve,  etc. 
(cf.  above,  p.  66,  §  21).  We  find  the  o  before  a  nasal,  too, 
as  chescone. 

33.    U  (AND  9)  BEFORE  A  PALATAL. 

The  phenomena  encountered  for  the  ui  <  q  -\-  palatal  and 
<  u  +  palatal  are,  naturally,  the  same. 

1.  UI,  U,  AND  I.  The  pronunciation  oi.ui  wavered,  in 
Anglo-Norman,  between  ui  and  ui]  the  original  accentua- 
tion was,  doubtless,  ui ;  this  is  shown,  in  part,  by  the  early 
and  the  persistent  use  of  u  for  ui]  i  for  ui  was  less  frequent, 
though  it  is  early.  Details  of  the  history  of  these  two  vari- 
ants merit  further  study;  in  character,  for  example.  Hi 
rhymes  with  final  il,  and  iiir  with  il  -f  r,  but  Hit  not  with 
ii-\-t',  this  seems  to  indicate  that  before  t  the  pronuncia- 
tion may  have  been  Hi,  and,  consequently,  ut  and  uit  would 
have  made  no  rhyme. 

The  it  {<  Hi)  may  rhyme  with  u  (o)  just  like  original  U, 
as  in  Gaimar,  tuz  :  destruit.^ 

2.  01.  AVe  find  oi  in  our  texts  substituted  for  the 
ul  <  tj  -f  palatal   and  for  the  id  <  o  -f  palatal ;    as   used 

1  Cf.  Sti milling,  Boeve,  p.  193. 

2  Cf.  Stiinining,  Boeve,  p.  100  ;  Such.  Gram.  p.  64. 

8  For  §  33,  1,  cf.  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  I,  82,  §  62;  Litblt.  II,  359; 
Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  209  ;  Such.  Gram.  p.  35. 


PHONOLOGY  81 

for  the  former,  it  furnishes  another  example  of  Anglo- 
Norman  confusion  of  orthographies  (cf.  above,  p.  74,  where 
ui  is  substituted  for  the  irregular  oi  representing  free  o). 
Already  in  the  Cumpoz  (L)  we  note  loist,  join}  As  used  for 
ui  <  o  +  palatal,  the  oi  may  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  origi- 
nal oj  before  diphthongization  (>  uei,  ui),  just  as  we  have 
original  o  in  free  position  reflected  in  the  o  of  our  early  texts 
(cf.  above,  p.  70,  §  24,  1) ;  in  some  monuments  oi  occurs  for 
ui  <  OJ,  but  not  for  ui  <  uj,  and  these  same  texts  do  not 
confuse  u  (o)  and  u  (u)  ;  this,  of  course,  points  to  a  histori- 
cal oi  (for  oj) ;  later  texts,  however,  doubtless  use  oi  or  ui 
indiscriminately.^ 

3.  UE.  This  orthography  (for  ui)  is  particularly  note- 
worthy in  Angier ;  some  examples  are  pues,  puessent,  nuet, 
mues  (modios  ;  ^  this  ue  can  be  reduced  to  u :  pusse,  pussent. 
The  word  proximum  numbers  pruesme  and  priisme  Oxf. 
Pscdt.,  Q.  L.  R.)  among  its  derivatives;  these  and  other 
variants  of  the  same  word  occur  in  general  French,  how- 
ever, and  the  ue  of  pruesme  may  not  represent  the  same 
phenomenon  as  that  recorded  for  Angier.* 

CONSONANTS 

The  only  general  tendency,  if  we  may  call  it  such,  to  be 
noted  in  connection  with  Anglo-Norman  consonants,  is  the 
fondness  of  the  scribes  for  double  consonants  ;  the  doubling 
is  not  confined  to  consonants  of  any  one  class,  liquids,  den- 
tals, palatals,  or  labials,  but  all  are  treated  alike  and  sub- 
jected to  the  process,  regardless  of  etymological  justification. 
Stimming  gives  examples  and  texts ;  ^  many  instances  are  to 
be  found  in  Angier :  ^  soccors,  achettee,  obbedience,  relligion, 

1  Mall,  p.  64  ;  Such.  Gram,  p,  35. 

2  Cf.  Such.  Gram.  p.  59  ;  Vising,  ^tnde,  p.  86  ;  Paris,  Vie  St.  Gilles, 
p.  xxxi.  8  cf^  Meyer,  Bom.  XII,  196  ;  Cloran,  Dialogues,  p.  50. 

*  Cf.  Such.  Gram.  p.  60.  ^  Boeve,  p.  240. 

6  Meyer,  p.  198  ;  Cloran,  p.  52. 

G 


82  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

reddevance,  douzze,  etc.  I  note  in  Arundel  Psalt.,  pleinne, 
orreilles,  tuitte;^  in  Brandan,  frerre,  L  85;  in  Sardenai,  239, 
chappele;  in  Apocalypse,  111,  dlttez.  Vitte  has  an  explana- 
tion of  its  own  (cf.  below,  p.  93,  §  39).  These  double 
consonants  have  usually  been  considered  to  possess  no  espe- 
cial phonetic  significance,  but  recent  investigations  go  to 
show  that  they  may  reflect  an  actual  pronunciation  of 
French  consonants  by  the  English.^ 

M  AND   N 

34.  We  treat  these  two  together  because  about  the  only 
thing  noteworthy  in  connection  with  them  is  their  inter- 
change, and  this  is  not  at  all  peculiar  to  Anglo-Norman, 
though  very  frequent  there ;  such  frequency  has  always 
attracted  the  attention  of  editors,  and  they  have  studied 
the  phenomenon  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  kind  of  con- 
sonant following  the  m  or  the  n ;  the  kind  of  vowel  preced- 
ing the  m  or  w ;  the  bearing  of  the  history  of  the  m,  n  on 
the  question  of  the  nasalization  of  the  vowels  in  Anglo- 
Norman,  etc.     Consequently  some  notice  is  here  necessary. 

1.  Interchange.  In  Anglo-Norman  we  must  not  expect 
the  regular  French  rule  of  m  -f  dental  >  n\  n  -\-  labial  >  m 
to  be  carried  out  consistently  ;  there  exists  no  apparent  regu- 
larity, n,  for  example,  occurs  before  labials  in  many  texts, 
from  the  very  earliest,  in  Lois  Guillaume,  XLVIII,  we  have 
meyibres,  in  Oxf.  Psalt.,  enblancet,  etc.^  Before  /,  Anglo- 
Norman  has  a  fondness  for  m :  ^  emfant,  gumfanun,  etc. 

2.  N  AFTER  R.     The  history  of  n  in  words  like  jurn, 

1  Zt.  XI,  526,  516  ;  XII,  46. 

2  I  refer  here  to  the  researches  of  Morsbach,  published  in  Beitrdge 
zur  Roman,  unci  Eng.  Philologie.  Festgabe  filr  W.  Foerster.  Halle, 
1902,  pp.  324-330.  Cf.  liom.  XXXI,  618 ;  cf.  below,  p.  80,  rr,  and 
p.  99,  cc.  From  the  last  reference  we  shall  see  that  the  suggestion  of 
a  phonetic  value  for  the  double  consonants  was  not  new  in  the  case  of 
cCy  at  least. 

8  Examples,  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  215.  *  Ibid.  p.  216. 


^^     OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


C^l_ip(*Rl 

PHONOLOGY         ^^^^^.-^-^--^      83 

emfern,  has  attracted  the  especial  attention  of  editors.  It 
is,  naturally,  of  most  importance  in  poetical  texts.  In  the 
earliest  of  these,  the  Cumpoz,  it  already  shows  signs  of  dis- 
appearance (enfer-.fer),  though  by  the  side  of  such  rhymes, 
examples  occur  proving  the  pronunciation  of  the  n,  and  it 
seems  to  have  preserved  its  value  sometimes  even  in  com- 
binations like  enferns,  corns.  Editors  of  texts  subsequent  to 
the  Cumpoz,  however,  agree  that  this  n  is  silent  in  their 
texts,  having  no  phonetic  value,  even  when  written  (as  is 
often  the  case).^ 

3.  M  AND  ]Sr  Final.  A  distinction  between  these  two 
is  observed  only  in  the  Lois  Guillaume  and  the  Oxf.  Psalt., 
among  our  texts.^ 

4.  M  AND  jS"  and  the  Nasalization  of  Vowels.  Some 
reference  to  this  important  subject  seems  necessary;  as  in 
general  French,  the  difficulties  are  encountered  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  language.  We  introduce  a  note  on  the  ques- 
tion here  because  the  interchange  of  m  and  n  is  supposed  to 
have  a  bearing  upon  the  point,  and  because  m  and  n  have 
been  spoken  of  as  having  varying  values  after  different 
vowels. 

For  example,  Koschwitz,^  in  speaking  of  mum  pecchiet* 
Oxf.  Psalt.  XXIV,  12,  says  the  appearance  of  m  for  n 
before  a  labial,  which  often  occurs  in  Anglo-Norman  (he 
here  cites  examples),  proves  that  in  this  dialect  m  (n)  does 
not  form  a  nasal  combination  with  the  preceding  vowel. 

Again,  Mall,^  speaking  for  the  Cumpoz,  says :  m  and  n 
are  kept  distinct  (forms  like  emposet,  730,  are  rare) ;  the 
only  exception  is  in  the  rhyme  ums  :  wis,  om :  on,  and  he  ex- 
plains this  exception  by  saying  that  nasalization  was  very 
old  in  {ou)-\-  miiii).^ 

1  Cf.  for  example,  Walberg,  Best.  p.  Ivi ;  Paris,  Gme.  de  Berneville, 
p.  xxxii ;  Stimming,  Boeve.,  pp.  x  and  216. 

2  Such.  Lithlt.  XXII,  121.  »  Zt.  II,  488. 

*  Mum  is  one  of  Meister's  corrections  ;  cf.  Meister,  pp.  108  and  118. 
5  p.  76.  6  Cf.  Walberg,  Best  p.  Ivi. 


84  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

These  two  statements,  the  one  proving  the  status  of  the 
vowel  from  that  of  the  consonant,  the  other  that  of  the  con- 
sonant from  that  of  the  vowel,  mutually  complete  each 
other.  The  idea  of  Koschwitz  seems  to  be  that  in  a  nasal 
combination  the  separate  identity  of  m  as  a  labial  and  of  n 
as  a  dental  would  be  lost:  if  mim  x)ecchiet  had  been  pro- 
nounced mun  pecchiet,  the  speaker  or  hearer  would  have 
been  aware  of  no  abrupt  break  from  the  mun  to  the  pecchiet  ; 
but  mum  pecchiet  proves  that  the  pronunciation  was  at  first 
m?i-?i  pecchiet,  and,  to  avoid  having  a  dental  (?i)  followed 
directly  by  a  labial  (p)  the  n  was  changed  to  a  labial  (m). 
This  change  of  n  to  m  to  suit  a  following  consonant  indi- 
cates that  m  and  n  had  their  distinct  values,  which  they 
would  not  have  had  if  the  preceding  u  had  formed  a  nasal 
combination  with  the  n.  This  is  further  illustrated  by 
Mall's  example,  where  such  a  loss  of  individual  values  is 
illustrated  by  the  rhyming  of  urn :  un,  in  which  we  have  to 
suppose  a  nasal  value  for  the  ic. 

Thus  the  two  statements  fit  into  each  other.  The  sepa- 
rate identity  of  the  consonant  in  the  first  case  proves  non- 
nasalization ;  nasalization  in  the  second  case  explains  the 
non-individuality  of  the  consonants.  After  all,  however, 
the  two  writers  meant  to  assert  two  things,  Koschwitz, 
non-nasalization.  Mall,  interchangeableness  of  m  and  n. 
The  first  proves  non-nasalization  by  interchangeableness; 
the  second,  interchangeableness,  by  nasalization. 

This  is  about  as  far  as  a  study  of  the  question  of  nasali- 
zation in  the  writings  of  our  editors  will  lead.  A  general 
presentation  of  the  point  is  given  by  Suchier.^  The  con- 
vincing statement  for  the  early  history  of  the  nasalization 
of  the  vowels,  not  only  in  Anglo-Norman,  but  in  general 
French,  is  yet  to  be  formulated.  Maybe  the  solution  is  to 
be  discovered  in  Anglo-Norman  ;  there  is  a  great  advantage 
in  beginning  the  study  with  that  dialect,  because  we  know 
that  nasalization  disappeared  there  toward  the  end  of  the 

1  Gram.  p.  6L 


PHONOLOGY  85 

thirteenth  century/  only  a  century  and  a  half  after  the  date 
of  our  first  texts ;  the  circumstances  of  the  disappearance  of 
nasalization  so  soon  after  its  appearance  ought  to  throw 
some  light  on  the  manner  of  that  appearance;  principles 
thus  obtained  might  apply  to  general  French. 

5.    Miscellaneous. 

Stimming  ^  considers  the  following  points :  — 

a.  Confusion  of  n  and  I  (cdne).  We  may  add  a  similar 
confusion  of  n  and  ?•;  for  example,  in  Vie  Gregoire  occurs 
joevres  {  =  jeunes)  lines  958,  1552,  and  in  Vie  St.  Thomas 
III,  87,  88  we  note  a  similar  jo(ii)vre. 

b.  Confusion  in  orthography  of  n  and  gn :  digner  =  diner. 
We  note  an  example  of  this  in  Sardenai,^  moigne  (the  regular 
moine  is  the  rule,  however). 

c.  Loss  of  etymological  w  .*  covendra. 

d.  Insertion  of  an  inorganic  n :  ensi,  boins.  In  Arundel 
Psalt.  we  note  seigne  (=  seige  for  siege).^ 

I  consider  below  the  Anglo-Norman  form  verms  (p.  114, 
§  54),  and  the  peculiar  ending  -dnie,  <  n  -f  j  (p.  90,  §  37,  3). 


35.    L  (BEFORE   A   CONSONANT). 

I  have  little  to  note  here  that  is  remarkable.  There  is  no 
well-defined  usage  confined  to  any  particular  period.  If  we 
should  endeavor  to  divide  the  examples  from  our  texts  under 
the  headings  'I  remains,'  'I  falls,'  'l>  ic^  we  would  find  one 
and  the  same  text  often  illustrating  all  three.  Neither  will 
a  division  of  the  examples  according  to  the  vowel  preceding 
the  I  justify  itself.  The  state  of  affairs  in  the  older  texts  is 
the  following :  previous  to  Brandan,  I  is  kept  quite  consist- 
ently :  Cumpoz,  I  remains ;  ^  Bestiaire,  I  remains  as  a  rule, 
falls  in  the  group -e?s;^  in  Lois  Guillaume,  where  one  Ms. 

1  Cf.  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  218.         2  Boeve,  pp.  216-218. 

3  Rom.  XIV,  88.  ^  Zt.  XII,  46. 

5  Mall,  pp.  65,  77.  ^  Walberg,  pp.  liii,  liv. 


86  MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH   DIALECTS 

shows  I  >  \i,  the  variants  from  all  the  other  Mss.  will  show 
the  I  to  be  kept.  There  is  only  one  word  in  the  whole  text 
with  I  >  u  for  which  no  variant  showing  the  I  kept  is  given ;  ^ 
Oxf.  Psalt.,  I  remains,  but  a  weakening  is  evident  because  of 
the  presence  of  a  glide  e,  chcUemeals.  Before  flexional  s,  I  is 
sometimes  lost,  though  examples  showing  this  are  in  a 
minority;^  Camb.  Psalt.,  I  remains;  in  rare  cases  it  falls  or 
>  ?* ;  ^  Q.  L.  11.,  I  remains.  Schlosser  studied  in  detail'*  the 
history  of  the  I  after  various  vowels.  The  exceptions  are 
autre,  autel,  and/;<;;  Oxf.  Roland,  I  is  kept;  glide  e  appears 
exceptionally. 

AVith  the  Brandayi  the  weakening  of  the  I  becomes  the 
rule ;  ^  by  the  side  of  heals,  oiseals,  that  text  shows  hens, 
oiseus.  Gaimar  knew  the  vocalization.^  In  Angier  the  I  can 
remain,  fall,  or  become  u.'^  Chardri  and  Gme.  de  Berneville 
both  illustrate  the  vocalization  >  u.^ 

1.   L  >  U. 

The  earliest  known  examples  of  ?  >  u  in  Anglo-Norman 
occur  in  the  Domesday  Book  (date,  1086)  in  the  proper  names 
Bauduin,  Tethaut.^  There  is  little  doubt  but  that  I  had  the 
value  of  u  in  many  cases  when  retained  in  orthography, 
and  editors  of  early  poems  are  sometimes  constrained  to 
say  that  while  they  do  not  find  rhymes  attesting  the  vocali- 
zation of  I,  neither  do  they  find  rhymes  proving  that  the 
vocalization  might  not  have  taken  place.^"  It  is  evident  that 
vocalization  of  I  >  u  was  known  very  early  in  Anglo- 
Norman;  it  became  common  toward  the  end  of  the 
thirteenth  century. 

1  Such.  Litblt.  XXII,  12L  2  Harseim,  p.  320. 

8  Schuijiann,  p.  43.  4  pp,  q,  21,  28,  38,  39,  48,  53. 

6  Forster,  Zt.  I,  5G5.         e  Vising,  Etnde,  p.  87.         f  Cloran,  p.  52. 

8  Koch,  pp.  XXX,  xxxili,  xxxvii  ;  Paris,  p.  xxiv. 

^  Zi.  VIII,  361,  §  39  ;  for  the  earliest  examples  in  French  proper  of. 
Mom.  XVII,  428. 

1'^  Cf.  for  example.  Vising,  l^tiide,  p.  77  {Brandan))  Walberg,  Best. 
p.  liii. 


PHONOLOGY  87 

2.  L  Lost. 

The  simple  loss  of  the  I  is  likewise  attested  by  frequent 
examples  from  the  time  of  the  earliest  texts ;  ^  the  two  phe- 
nomena, I  >  It  and  /  lost,  seem  to  have  been  present  side  by 
side,  with  little  or  no  time  difference  in  the  process  of  their 
change.  We  have  an  indication  in  the  Orthograpliia  Gcdlica 
that  I  became  u  when  I  was  preceded  by  a,  e,  or  o ;  this  coin- 
cides with  the  fact  that  the  earliest  examples  in  rhyme  for 
the  loss  of  I  are  when  the  I  was  preceded  by  i  or  u.  The 
rule  of  the  OrtliogrcqMa  Gallica  doubtless  represents  the 
original  state  of  affairs.^ 

3.  Final  L  >  U  (or  Lost). 

Final  I  preceding  a  word  beginning  with  a  consonant  may 
become  u.  This  is  an  extension  of  the  vocalization  of  the  I 
in  the  body  of  a  word,  appears  later,  and  is  at  first  confined 
to  i^roclitic  words  like  del  and  al ;  it  is  frequently  found  in 
teu,  queu  (tel,  quel)  too.  Stiirzinger  gives  references.^  We 
may  add  Vie  St.  Thomas,  teu  pes  (I,  56),  ceu  jour  (III,  40). 
This  teu  is  used  with  feminines  both  in  Chardri  and  Vie  St. 
Thomas  (teu  joie,  IV,  85).  We  note  also  nu  =  ne  le,  Bible 
Fragment,  854 ;  eu  —  en  I,  Apocalypse,  378,  623.  In  the 
Apocalypse  we  find  the  u  before  a  vowel  too,  solau  oscures, 

solau  e,  413,  430. 

The  same  analogy  (to  I  +  consonant  in  the  interior  of 
words)  will  explain  the  occasional  loss  of  final  /,  particularly 
in  unaccented  words,  a,  de,  ne,  and  the  like  (for  al,  del,  nel).* 

4.   Miscellaneous. 

a.  Confusion  of  I  and  r.  The  confusion  is  frequent  from 
the  time  of  the  earliest  texts.  Cf.  Bestiaire,  nature :  nule, 
Gaimer,  Contraire  :  bataille.  Vie  St.  Gilles,  apostorie  :  his- 
torie;  Apocalypse,  itel  :  mer  (line  1228).'' 

1  Reference  in  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  211. 

2  See  the  full  note  and  references  of  Stiirzinger,  Orth.  Gall.  p.  50, 

VII,  T.  11. 

3  Orth.  Gall.  p.  50.  *  Cf.  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  212. 
6  Cf.  Walberg,  Best.  p.  Iv;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  212. 


88  MANUAL   OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

b.  Z  +  /  >  r.  This  development  is  noted  by  Paris  ^  not 
only  for  original  I  as  in  apostolie ;  apostorie;  cited  above, 
but  even  for  the  I  <  d,  as  seen  in  the  proper  name  Gidie, 
Gilie,  Gile,  Gire. 

c.  Inorganic  I.  There  are  a  few  examples  of  such  an  I 
both  before  consonants  and  final,  as  voils  =  voix?  In  Arun- 
del Pscdt.  I  note  felidnie,  elnemis.^ 

36.    L   AND   N   MOUILLEES. 

1.  Loss  OF  Palatalization.  We  have  to  note  the  loss 
of  the  palatalization  of  the  I  and  n  in  Anglo-Norman.  The 
fact  that  the  palatalization  can  disappear  not  only  when  V 
and  7i'  precede  consonants,  but  Avhen  they  are  intervocalic  or 
final,  and  that  the  I  from  V  can  become  u  just  like  original  / 
before  a  consonant  —  these  facts  point  to  an  early  date  for 
the  loss.  It  became  general  in  the  course  of  the  thirteenth 
century ;  we  must  not  suppose,  however,  that  the  palatalized 
sounds  were  forgotten  by  our  writers,  for  such  was  not  the 

case.* 

2.  Orthographic  Variants.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
the  numbers  of  variants  for  V  and  n'  that  appear  in  the 
Domesday  Book.^  For  V  we  find  ilgi,  ilg,  illg,  il,  ill,  Uli,  ly,  Ug, 
Hi,  II;  for  n',  ingi,  ing,  inc,  ini,  ign,  in,  inn,  gn,  ngi,  ng,  ni,  im. 
This  list  might,  apparently,  embrace  all  varieties,  but  it 
does  not  include  the  ignn  of  the  Q.  L.  R.,  nor  the  iUl  of  the 
same  (the  latter  is  an  evident  mistake,  however),*'  nor  the 
igni  and  nni  of  the  Camh.  PtscdtJ  Doubtless,  a  com- 
plete list  for  Anglo-Norman  would  offer  additions  to  the 

1  Gme.  de  Berneville,  p.  xxxii. 

2  Cf.  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  211,  212.  «  Zt  XI,  524,  525. 

4  The  best  general  statement  and  references  on  the  point  are  tliose 
of  Vising,  Etude,  pp.  77,  78,  and  87.  He  here  speaks  of  the  confusion 
of  palatal  and  dental  sounds  in  Gaimar  and  Brandan  (cf.  for  the  latter, 
Zt.  IX,  100).  For  the  Cnnipoz  and  Bestiaire,  cf.  Walberg,  p.  liv  (no 
examples  of  n' :  n  however,  p.  Ivi)  ;  Gme.  de  Berneville,  Paris,  p. 
xxxii  ;  Boeve,  Stimming,  pp.  212  and  218. 

5  Zt.  VIII,  361,  3G2.      ^  Schlosser,  pp.  54,  61.      "^  Schumann,  p.  45, 


PHONOLOGY  89 

above.  Nevertheless,  the  favorite  orthography  for  V  and 
n'  in  our  texts  seems  always  to  have  been  simply  I  and  n, 
or  il  and  in. 


37.   Several  interesting  phenomena  present  themselves  in 
connection  with  a  study  of  this  consonant. 

1.  n  AND  RR.  The  confusion  of  single  and  double  r  is 
noteworthy.  Faulde  pays  especial  attention  to  it  in  his 
article  on  gemination.^  The  grammarian  Beza  warned  peo- 
ple against  the  carelessness  of  the  Norman  writers  in  this 
regard,  and  the  carelessness  is  strongly  reflected  on  Eng- 
lish territory.  Faulde  indicates  that  the  earliest  instances 
of  the  simplification  of  rr  occur  when  rr  was  preceded  and 
followed  by  e.  He  cites  cases  from  Bestiaire,  Oxf.  Psalt., 
and  Oxf.  Roland.  Meyer-Ltibke  ^  speaks  of  tr  >  rr  after  the 
accent  as  especially  Anglo-Norman,  though  he  adds  at  once 
that  r  is  found  too,  and  already  in  the  Cumpoz  {"jnere: 
amere,"  1.  2745^)  ;  Stimming''  gives  examples  and  text  ref- 
erences ;  Andresen  gives  instances  from  Amadas  et  Ydoine, 
and  refers  to  others  in  the  Anglo-Norman  Mss.  of  the  Eeim- 
predigt,  and  of  the  Lois  of  Marie  de  France.'^  Walberg,« 
for  the  Bestiaire,  decides  to  adopt  r  in  all  cases  except  for- 
eign words  and  the  future  of  seeir  (to  avoid  confusion  with 
the  same  tense  of  estre).  We  have  already  referred  to  the 
Arundel  Psalt.,  orreilles  (p.  82). 

It  seems  fruitless  to  endeavor  to  make  any  definite  state- 
ment for  the  r  and  rr.  To  divide  our  examples  according 
to  the  place  of  the  accent,  or  according  to  the  etymological 
background  of  the  r  (as  r,  rr,  tr,  etc.),  or  study  the  futures 
(in  which  so  many  cases  are  met),  —  all  leads  to  but  one  con- 
clusion :  we  are  in  the  presence  of  another  instance  of  mere 
confusion. 

1  Zt.  IV,  547.  2  Oram.  I,  446,  §  405,  490,  §  548. 

3  This  is  an  incorrect  citation  ;  the  rliyme  is  pieres :  manieres. 

4  Boeve,  p.  214.  '  Zt.  XIII,  86.  «  p.  Ixxxix. 


90  MANUAL  OF  OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

2.  R  BEFORE  A  Consonant.  The  loss  of  the  r  when 
preceding  a  consonant  is  often  to  be  noted  in  Anglo-Norman, 
and  proves  the  weak  pronunciation  of  the  r:  reto{i')ner, 
se(r)fs,  etc.  Stimming  gives  references  and  examples.^  We 
cite,  in  addition,  the  following :  in  Sardenai,  447,  occurs  the 
rhyme  dame  :  arme  (where  arme  =  anima)  ;  in  Apocalypse, 
is  oscurz  :  puz  ;  in  the  same,  25,  we  find  nurves  :  pointures. 
Anglo-Norman  thus  adds  its  quota  to  the  many  indications 
we  have  of  an  early,  general  weakening  of  r  -\-  consonant 
throughout  Old  French.^ 

3.  K  -f  I.  Here  we  must  call  attention  to  the  endings 
-arie,  -erie,  -one  (and  similarly  -anie,  -enie,  -onie).  These 
occur  in  Anglo-Norman  as  -drie,  -erie,  -dnie,  etc.,  as  -aire,  -eire, 
-aine,  etc.,  and,  finally,  as  -arte,  -erie,  -anie,  etc.  The  first 
set,  -drie,  etc.,  is  represented  in  English  words  like  primary, 
victory  ;  the  second  -aire,  etc.,  is  the  regular  French  form ;  the 
third,  arie,  etc.,  occurs  in  the  latter  stages  of  Anglo-Norman 
(victorie  :  vie),  —  Uhlemann  specifies  shortly  before  or  after 
the  date  of  A2iban.^ 

4.  R  AFTER  A  Consonant. 

a.  e  inserted  (faiiderai,  etc.).  This  point  has  already 
been  discussed  (cf.  p.  61,  §  17,  2). 

b.  r  lost.  Editors  have  cited  but  few  examples  for  this  ; 
the  instances  in  Gaimar  are  well  known  :  estre  ifeste,  ancestre : 
geste,  entrent :  dementent}  In  Vie  Gregoire  I  note  Theotiste : 
epistre,  1.  1673.  We  have  to  do  mostly  with  the  group  -str 
(cf.  below,  no.  6,  where  an  inorganic  r  is  inserted  after  -st). 

5.  Metathesis  of  R.  This  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in 
Anglo-Norman,  though  by  no  means  confined  to  that  dialect. 

1  Boeve,  pp.  Hii  and  215. 

2  Cf.  here  the  important  remarks  and  references  of  Neumann,  Lithlt. 
VI,  241,  f.-n.  2. 

8  Cf.  on  this  point.  Vising,  ^tude,  pp.  71,  82  ;  Mall,  Cinnpoz,  p.  55  ; 
Uhlemann,  Auhan,  p.  509  ;  Walberg,  Best.  XLV,  LXXXV  ;  Grass, 
Adam,  125  ;  .Aleyer,  Bom.  XXV,  250. 

*  Cf.  Vising,  £tude,  p.  87  ;  Kupferschmidt,  p.  418. 


PHONOLOGY  91 

a.  -re  >  -er.  The  most  frequent  examples  of  metathesis 
in  our  texts  are  met  in  connection  with  forms  of  the  verb 
prendre ;  pernons,  pernez,  etc. ;  such  are  found  from  the  time 
of  the  very  earliest  prose  and  poetical  texts;  in  addition 
to  these,  a  few  cases  like  ester  <  esti-e,  quater  <  quatre,  are 
cited.^  I  note,  in  addition,  from  Melanges,  pover  ^povre;^ 
Vie  St.  Edmond,  882,  overs  =  ovres;  and  from  Apocalypse, 
liver,  296,  300,  304,  etc.,  by  the  side  of  livere;  also  quater, 
310,  329.  It  looks  as  if,  in  some  of  these  cases,  there  may 
have  been  a  development  such  as  livre  >  livere  >  liver. 

b.  -er  >  -re.  There  may  be  a  question  whether  certain 
verbs  which  apparently  show  a  change  of  conjugation  do 
not  rather  illustrate  a  metathesis  of  r ;  as  getter  >  gettre, 
lutter  >  luttre  (cf.  Morphology,  p.  119). 

6.  I^^ORGANic  R.  Stimming^  cites  some  exam^^les  from 
Q.  L.  R.,  Gaimar,  Bozon,  and  Ipomedon.  In  a  number  of 
cases  the  r  follows  t  and  st  {Olestre,  destrin,  etc.),  though 
philosophre  is  found.  In  Aspremont,  I  note  curorne,  80,  and 
entirely  different  from  the  above,  poreir  =  pioeir  {pouvoir), 

7.  Interchange  of  L  and  R.  Here  we  have  only  to 
refer  to  page  87,  where  this  point  has  already  been  treated. 


38.  We  must  note  the  Anglo-Norman  development  of 
p  +  J,  which  has  been  discussed  as  follows :  Mall  ■*  said  that 
the  sound  of  the  c  <  pj  was  ts,  and  quoted  examples  from 
Philippe  de  Thatin,  Q.  L.  E.,  Fantosme,  etc. ;  such  was  like- 
wise the  result  of  Varnhagen's  extended  study .^  The  deci- 
sion of  the  question  seems  to  have  depended  almost  entirely 
upon  the  rhyming  of  the  word  sace  (sapiat)  with  those  words 

1  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  213.  2  j^om.  IV,  376. 

3  Boeve,  p.  215.  *  Cumpoz,  p.  92. 

5  Zt.  Ill,  177  ;  cf.  Bom.  VIII,  625  (a  summary  of  V.'s  results). 


92  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

in  which  a  similar  c  had  an  assured  value  of  ts,  such  as  tace, 
face,  glace,  etc.  Schlosser^  has  a  long  note  on  the  point,  in- 
cluding a  review  of  the  discussion :  the  Q.  L.  R.  represents 
the  c  <  pj  by  c,  ch,  sch,  and  sc  (last  two  seldom)  ;  the  ch  and 
sch,  he  says,  indicate  the  pronunciation  c  ^  for  c  <  pj  was  not 
unknown  to  the  scribe  of  the  Q.  L.  M.  If  such  is  true  of  that 
text  and  of  the  Camh.  Psalt.  sace,^  it  was  doubtless  true  of 
later  texts ;  c  is  further  indicated  by  English  words  like 
approach  ;^  consequently  we  must  suppose  that  Anglo-Nor- 
man knew  both  ts  and  c  for  the  c  <  pj,  the  older  value  being 
ts.  Walberg  ^  cites  further  examples  of  c  having  the  value  of 
ts,  saying  that  sace :  glace  is  a  Norman  rhyme. 

T,  D 

39.    T   AND   D   INTERVOCALIC. 

Our  texts  show  that  Anglo-Norman,  so  swift  in  many  of 
its  phonetic  changes,  preserves  some  of  the  rare  examples 
that  represent  the  gradual  disappearance  of  t  and  d,  and 
thus  exemplifies  the  fact  that  the  disappearance  was  very 
much  later  in  some  portions  of  French  dialect  territory  than 
in  others.^  The  comparatively  extensive  use  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  th  in  our  texts  makes  it  evident  that  the  Normans 
still  pronounced  the  intervocalic  dentals  at  the  time  of  the 
conquest,  and  that  this  pronunciation  was  continued  in 
Anglo-Norman  for  some  time,  till  toward  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century  in  any  case.^  That  the  pronunciation  th  or 
clh  was  peculiar  to  Anglo-Norman  is  not  sure.^ 

For  our  earliest  texts  we  note  the  following :  *^  In  Cumpoz 

1  Q.  L.  B.  p.  63.  2  I  ^^se  ^  as  equivalent  to  ch  in  English  church. 

8  Schumann,  p.  50.       ■*  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  235.       ^  ^^st.  p.  Ixvii. 
«  I  here  refer  to  Lot's  researches,  Bom.  XXX,  481  ss. 
'  See  here  the  statement  and  references  of  Kluge  and  Baist,  Zt.  XX, 
330.     For  useful  references,  of.  Ibid.  p.  322. 

8  See  note  and  reference  by  Paris,  Bom.  XVI,  156. 

9  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  388,  §  436. 


PHONOLOGY  93 

and  Bestiaire  the  dentals  fall,  with  isolated  exceptions.^  In 
Alexis  (L)  th  occurs  very  often.  In  Lois  GuiUaume,  where 
the  scribe  omits  the  intervocalic  dental  constantly,  we  have 
one  of  the  rare  examples  of  the  use  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  den- 
tal spirant  sign,  dt  (Jlede).^  In  Oxf.  Psalt.  the  dental  is  kept 
as  a  rule,  though  there  are  a  number  of  examples  of  its  fall. 
In  past  participles,  forms  with  d  are  predominant;  in  other 
words  the  dental  perseveres  or  is  lost  with  no  apparent 
regularity ;  or  again,  certain  words,  like  vie,  crier,  ocii^e,  never 
have  the  dental.^  For  the  Canib.  Psalt.  Schumann  ^  thinks 
that,  in  the  original,  the  fall  was  well-nigh  general ;  th  occurs 
but  once  (benetheit,  XXVII,  6).  The  Q.  L.  R.  shows  the 
same  state  of  affairs  as  the  Cumpoz  and  Bestiaire.^ 

We  may  deduce,  from  this  evidence,  that  within  a  sin- 
gle dialect,  here  the  Anglo-Norman,  the  fall  of  t,  d  took 
place  more  readily  in  some  words  than  in  others.  This 
point  is  studied  at  length  by  Koschwitz.^  According  to  him 
the  earliest  cases  of  the  fall  are  shown  by  Latin  d  -f  k  (these 
two  having  been  assimilated  even  in  Latin  times)  ;  then  d 
(  <  t)  +  r ;  fZ  +  le ;  ai,  ei,  etc.  -\-  d.  A  simple  statement  is 
given  by  Paris,  too :  ^  the  d  that  disappears  comes  from  d 
intervocalic,  or  d  followed  by  r  or  /  (vidrent,  Eodlant)  ;  from  i 
intervocalic  (vide,  muder)  or  followed  by  r  or  I  {podrons). 
It  must  have  been  pronounced  nearly  like  English  th  in  this. 
It  shows  signs  of  disappearance  at  the  epoch  of  the  Roland 
and  does  fall  shortly  afterward. 

The  word  vite,  which  is  so  persistent,  even  in  texts  showing 
in  other  cases  the  fall  of  the  t,  d,^  and  which  is  written  vitte 
in  the  Brandan  (1.  76),  may  be  considered  a  learned  word  in 
this  form  (vite),  used  in  referring  to  the  recountal  of  the 
events  in  the  life  of  a  saint.^ 

1  Mall,  pp.  79,  80 ;  Walberg,  p.  Ivii. 

2  Matzke,  p.  xlviii.  ^  Harseim,  p,  321. 
*  p.  47.  6  Schlosser,  p.  67. 

^  Ueherlieferung,  pp.  58-60.  '^  Extraits  Roland^,  p.  15. 

8  Cf.  Walberg,  Best.  p.  Ivii.  ^  Paris,  Bom.  XXIX,  590,  f.-n.  1. 


94  MANUAL   OF  OLD  FRENCH   DIALECTS 

40.    T  AND  D  FINAL. 

The  state  of  affairs  with  regard  to  the  final  dentals  is  very- 
confusing  at  first  sight.  For  example:  In  the  Oxf.  Psalt. 
the  t  and  d  are  kept  quite  regahirl}^ ;  in  the  original  they 
were  probably  not  always  pronounced.  We  have  lists  of  the 
verbs  in  this  text  showing  the  exact  proportion  of  the  fall 
or  the  maintenance  of  final  dentals.^  In  the  Camb.  Psalt., 
certain  words  always  keep  the  final,  others  always  drop  it, 
others  are  irregular ;  there  is  a  like  inconsistency  in  verb 
forms,  though  in  the  last  two  parts  of  the  Psalter  a  tendency 
to  drop  the  finals  is  manifest  -,  t  >  d  seldom ;  we  note  seven 
instances  of  tJi;-  I  note  th  in  Arundel  Psalt.,  oth  (audivit).^ 
In  the  Q.  L.  R.  the  dental  remains  as  d  (seldom  t)  or  falls. 
Here,  too,  we  have  details  for  verbs  and  various  words. 
After  consonants  t  remains ;  there  is  one  example  of  th.* 

The  pronunciation  of  these  finals,  where  kept,  depended 
on  the  elements  following  them.  Both  t  and  d,  unsupported 
by  other  consonants,  had  two  values  previous  to  their  dis- 
appearance, th  (thing)  and  th  (this),  the  former  before  pauses 
and  voiceless  explosives,  for  example ;  the  latter  before 
vowels,  and  before  consonants  other  than  the  voiceless 
stops. 

The  manner  and  stages  of  disappearance  of  these  finals 
have  given  rise  to  much  discussion.  Mall  ^  supposed  that 
final  t  was  always  pronounced  in  one  manner  —  voiceless, 
and  that  it  disappeared  gradually,  first  after  e,  i  {Cumpoz) 
next  after  a  (Bestiaire),  finally  after  u.  Suchier^  devotes 
some  space  to  a  refutal  of  Mall's  position.  He  insists  on 
the  distinction  between  the  fixed  ("  fest ")  and  the  shift- 
ing ("  lose  ")  dental  (the  t  in  set  <  septem  is  a  "  fest,"  the  d 
in /eici  <  FiDEM  a  ^' lose"  dental).  The  two  do  not  rhyme 
together  regularly,  and  must  have  had  different  pronuncia- 

1  Ilarseim,  p.  322.  2  Schumann,  pp.  47,  48. 

8  Zt.  XI,  515.  4  Schlosser,  p.  G8. 

^  Cumpoz,  p.  81  ss.  ^  lieimprediyt,  p.  xix  ss. 


PHONOLOGY  95 

tions,  the  one  ("  fest ")  voiceless,  the  other  ("  lose  ")  voiced. 
The  final  of  amed,  venud  had  the  same  value  as  the  inter- 
vocalic d  in  amede,  venude  (except  that  the  d  of  amed  may 
have  been  pronounced  as  d,  that  of  a7nede  as  th).  When 
the  d  of  amede  began  to  fall  in  the  course  of  the  eleventh 
century,  so  did  the  d  of  amed;  just  as  the  writing  of  inter- 
vocalic d  in  the  manuscripts  was  optional  in  the  middle  of 
the  twelfth  century,  so  was  that  of  final  d  (but  final  d  could 
interchange  with  t,  intervocalic  d  could  not). 

The  relative  times  of  the  loss  of  the  finals  Suchier  thinks 
to  have  been  the  following:  First  of  all,  original  etymo- 
logical d  fell.  Perfects  in  4t,  smdjlt  (fiiU)  lost  t  as  early  as 
the  eleventh  century.  Verbal  forms  in  -at  (perfects  in  -at, 
at  <  HABET,  and  futures  constructed  from  infinitives  +  the 
present  tense  of  habere),  lost  their  t  within  literary  times ; 
that  is,  during  and  after  the  twelfth  century.  Suchier 
specifies  the  Norman  and  Anglo-Norman  texts  keeping,  and 
those  losing,  the  t  after  a} 

Vising^  accepts  Suchier's  division  of  the  two  classes  of 
dentals,  and  dwells  upon  the  sharp  line  of  demarcation 
between  the  fixed  and  the  changeable  dental.  Walberg^ 
goes  over  the  whole  question,  formulating  a  scheme  based 
on  the  statements  of  Suchier,  and  on  those  of  Paris  in  the 
Extraits  Roland.  Walberg  considers  the  examples  under 
three  headings.  First :  finals  originally  between  two  vowels, 
of  which  the  second  fell  in  French,  and  the  final  of  atonic  -at. 
Here  the  t  fell  as  early  as  the  Bestiaire,  fei :  lei ;  examples 
are  furnished  likewise  by  the  participial  endings  -atum, 
-iTUM.  For  the  termination  -at,  he  makes  a  count  of  the 
rhyme  -e{t) :  e,  of  e(t)  :  e(t),  also  of  the  elision  of  the  e  of  e{t). 
Second:  finals  supported  by  other  consonants;  here  the  t 
remained  steadfastly,  cidt :  twit.  Third  :  finals  not  supported 
by  other  consonants  ;  here  the  final  dental  is  lost ;  examples 

1  See  here  Stengel's  remarks,  Litblt.  II,  329  ;  Meyer-Lubke  gives  a 
summary  of  Suchier's  results,  Gram.  I,  500,  §  557. 

2  :^tude,  p.  89.  3  Bestiaire,  p.  Ivii  ss. 


96  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

are  drawn  from  preterites  in  -it,  -at,  and  at  <  habet,  also 
futures  in  -at  <  habet.  Walberg  ^  questions  two  rhymes 
cited  by  Mall  from  the  Cumpoz  (preterites  in  -it  rhyming 
with  a  fixed  t)  ;  in  this  he  is  upheld  by  Paris.^ 

The  above  represents  the  merest  outline  of  the  question  as 
it  affects  Anglo-Norman  more  especially.  There  are  many 
interesting  points  of  detail,  even  in  our  dialect,  not  spoken 
of  here,  but  which  are  referred  to  in  the  citations  given. 
Without  a  knowledge  of  these  points  the  student  will  expe- 
rience difficulty  in  assigning  examples  from  any  one  text 
to  places  imder  the  three  divisions  as  given  above.  Because 
so  many  verb  forms  have  final  t,  the  investigator  has  to 
allow  for  analogies,  crossings,  and  the  like.  Furthermore 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  even  comparatively  definite 
statements,  like  those  of  Suchier  and  Walberg,  indicate 
only  the  general  lines  of  development.  In  the  study  of 
some  one  poetical  production,  for  example,  it  will  have  to  be 
remembered  that  the  finals,  before  completely  disappearing, 
were  pronounced  or  not  pronounced  according  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  rhymes ;  and  for  each  text  the  editor  has  to 
adopt  some  consistent  scheme  of  orthography  with  regard 
to  the  dentals  found  in  his  text  (as  did  Mall,  Suchier,  and 
Walberg,^  among  others). 

41.    T   AND   D   MISCELLANEOUS. 

1.  CoxFusiON  OF  T  AND  D  IN  Groups.  Here  we  re- 
fer to  Stimming ;  ^  we  find,  for  example,  veindre,  Bedleem  ; 
voutrions,  pertriz  ;  forment  illustrates  the  loss  of  the  t. 

2.  Final  T  and  D. 

a.  t,  d  <z  (ts).  This  peculiar  change  was  cited  by 
Suchier,^  early  in  our  studies.  It  affects  particularly  the 
second  person  plurals  in  -ez.     In  Camb.  Psalt.  we  note  seied, 

1  Bestiaire,  p.  Ixi,  f.-n.  2  jjom.  XXIX,  690. 

8  Cf.  Bestiaire,  p.  xci.  *  Boeve,  pp.  221-223. 

6  Aiiban,  p.  48.  Cf.  Zt.  I,  570  ;  Litblt.  VI,  371  ;  Stimming,  Boeve, 
p.  230. 


PHONOLOGY  97 

corned,  and  also  an  example  from  a  past  participle,  liiecl 
(Z/e2  =  viNCTi),  CI,  19.  In  this  text  the  phenomenon  is 
noteworthy  also  because  it  affects  the  declension  of  the 
nouns :  jugemend  for  jugemenz,  etc.  Sometimes  both  d  and 
z  are  written,  mondz  =  montes.  The  d  may  be  assimilated 
to  a  following  consonant,  suz  lever  >  sudlever  >  sullever. 
The  same  {t  for  z)  occurs  in  Brandan,  seet,  prenget=  seez, 
]prengez  (cf.  below,  p.  122,  5). 

b.  Final  t  >  d.  d  for  final  t  is  a  common  orthographic 
peculiarity  of  Anglo-Norman ;  mound,  mord,  etc.^  The  con- 
fusion of  final  d  and  t  is  very  old,  being  found  in  the  Domes- 
day Book  ;  -  for  that  matter  it  goes  back  to  Latin  texts  just 
preceding  the  French  period.^ 

c.  Final  t  >  k.  This  change,  found  on  the  continent,  ap- 
pears in  several  instances  in  our  dialect.  Stimming  ^  men- 
tions examples  from  Boeve :  bixmc,  renc,  etc.,  and  refers  to 
others.  For  the  same  in  first  person  singular  present  of 
verbs,  see  below,  p.  120,  §  62,  b.  The  k  represents  a  mere 
orthographic  change  in  Anglo-Norman  —  a  fact  proved  by 
rhyme.^  To  the  examples  mentioned  we  may  add  one  from 
Vie  Gregoire,  2121,  Everivic  :  eslit. 

d.  Final  t  lost.  This  is  the  most  frequent  of  all  the 
phenomena  mentioned,  and  applies  to  t  in  the  interior 
of  the  word  as  well  as  to  final  t.  Examples  occur  from 
the  time  of  the  earliest  texts ;  es  =  est,  ai  =  ait,  osa  =  osast, 
etc.® 

e.  Inorganic  final  t.  Such  a  t  was  added  particularly 
after  n,  and  in  this  case,  was  pronounced:  tyrant,  pay sant, 
etc.^  It  is  easy  to  see  analogy  here,  and  likewise  in  cases 
where  t  is  added  after  s,  mist  (missum),/s^  (feci)  ;  but  after 
other  consonants,  as  ert  (heri),  and  after  vowels,  as  frait 
(  =zferai)  the  t  seems  due  only  to  indifferent  orthography. 

1  Boeve,  p.  22L  2  zt.  VIII,  360. 

8  Cf.  Bom.  I,  327  ;  Zt.  V,  45.  *  Boeve,  pp.  221,  222. 

5  Cf.  Sturzinger,  Orth.  Gall.  p.  52.       e  stimming,  Boeve,  p.  222. 

7    AlTolKri-nn*        7?>oo/      "Tk       1-viii 


H 


n  lib.    vruLi.  p.   fj^.  (jtiij 

"  Walberg,  Best.  p.  Ixiii. 


98  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

C 

42.  The  obscure  points  connected  with  the  history  of 
palatal  c  have  little  light  thrown  on  them  from  a  study  of 
Anglo-Norman.  This  dialect  not  only  offers  nothing  original 
or  peculiar,  but  it  reflects  nearly  every  irregularity  or  pecu- 
liarity to  be  seen  in  French  of  the  continent.  As  may  be 
expected,  all  kinds  of  orthographies  abound.  "  In  one  and 
the  same  manuscript  we  find  the  graphic  signs  of  Central 
French  and  of  South  Norman  by  the  side  of  those  of  Picard 
and  North  Norman,  —  a  fact  explained  by  the  presence  in 
England  of  immigrants  from  different  provinces  of  France."^ 
Koch  2  puts  the  case  even  more  strongly  when  he  says  that 
in  his  opinion  the  sounds  k  and  ch  (not  to  speak  of  the  signs 
used  for  them)  were  adopted  inconsistently  by  one  and  the 
same  individual.  The  three  sounds,  k,  ch,  and  ts  were  all 
known  to  Anglo-Norman  writers,  and  each  was  represented 
in  several  ways.     Stimming^  gives  them  as  follows :  — 

1.  C  PRONOUNCED  AS  K.  Hcrc  it  was  written  k  and  qu, 
q  being  used  only  before  u\  ch  too  was  used:  eschorchevj 
auchun. 

2.  C  PRONOUNCED  AS  TS.  c  is  fouud  here,  not  only 
before  e  and  i,  but  before  a  and  o ;  co,  comencat,  etc. ;  sc  re- 
flects the  change  from  ts  to  s  in  pronunciation :  ascer  (for 
which  change  s  alone  is  commonly  written)  ;  many  examples 
occur  in  Sardenai;  for  example,  sel,  110,  site  21  [we  find  the 
opposite,  c  =  s,  in  the  same  text,  as  eucent,  298,  auci,  225, 
etc.]  ;  ss  occurs  in  issi  (ici)  several  times.  In  both  early 
and  late  texts  ch  occurs  here  too,  and  not  infrequently  ;  feche 
(feis),  pecha  (pieca),  etc. 

3.  C  PRONOUNCED  AS  CH.  Here  c  is  found  quite  often 
in  the  earlier  texts,  especially  when  preceding  an  a  (Domes- 
day Book,  Brandan,  Oxf.  Roland).  However,  ch  early 
became  the  popular  way  of  denoting  the  sound  tsh  {Brandan, 

1  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  T,  357,  §  410.  ^  Chardri,  p.  xxxv. 

8  Boeve,  pp.  231-236. 


PHONOLOGY  99 

Cumpoz,  Camh.  Pscdt.,  Q.L.R.).  We  find  cch,  too.  Faulde,* 
noting  the  consistent  retention  of  cc  in  peccher  and  seccher 
in  texts  of  the  twelfth  century,  in  instances  where  continen- 
tal texts  show  one  c,  says  the  pronunciation  must  have  been 
k-tsh. 

The  presentation  of  the  question  by  Stimming  is  as  de- 
tailed as  a  work  of  the  nature  of  the  present  one  calls  for. 
The  palatals  in  each  separate  Anglo-Norman  text  furnish 
abundant  subjects  for  investigation.  For  such  investigations 
the  students  may  look  for  models  in  works  like  those  re- 
ferred to  in  the  foot-note  below.^ 

G 

43.  The  history  of  palatal  g  in  Anglo-Norman  is  essen- 
tially the  same  as  that  of  g  in  Central  French.  We  have  to 
note  several  varying  orthographies.  For  example,  g  for  dz, 
goie,  mangue,  gamhe;  ch  for  dz,  bercher,  chambe.  To  the 
examples  given  by  Stimming  ^  and  Walberg  ^  we  may  add 
some  from  Arundel  Psalt.,  where  we  find  ch  for  dz'm  vencheur, 
venchance,^  g  for  dz  in  goie,^  and  a  combination  of  g  and  ch  in 
estremgclicmz.  As  may  be  expected,  we  find  j  for  g ;  as 
Camh.  Pscdt.  XXXVI,  21,  jahle  =  gable,  and,  in  the  same 
text,  g  before  e  with  the  same  value  as  before  a,  as  orgeilhis, 
XXV,  4. 

V 

44.  There  is  little  that  is  characteristic  to  note  with 
regard  to  v. 

1.  Loss  OF  V  IN  Groups  and  Intervocalic.  We  have 
already  referred  (p.  91,  §  37,  4,  a)  to  the  insertion  of  an  e  in 

1  Zt.  IV,  553.  I  note  an  example  of  j  for  ch  in  Vie  Gregoire,  1598, 
jasquns. 

2  Varnhagen,  Das  c  im  Oxforder  Psalter;  Zt.  Ill,  161-177  (cf.  Rom. 
VIII,  625)  ;  Buhle,  Das  c  im  Lamhspringer  Alexius,  Oxforder  Bo- 
land  und  Londoner  Brandan  ;  Greifswakl,  1881  (cf.  Lithlt.  II,  441). 

2  Boeve,  p.  237.  *  Bestiaire,  p.  xcii. 

6  Zt.  XI,  519,  534.  6  ji,ia,  XII,  4,  26,  52. 


100    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

tlie  group  vr.  The  v  of  the  combination  is  sometimes  lost,  as 
is  shown  in  English  words  like  2^oor,  kerchief,  and  the  like  ; 
several  examples  occur  in  Boeve}  We  have  a  few  instances, 
also,  of  the  fall  of  the  v  intervocalic,  though  most  of  them 
occur  in  different  forms  of  the  verb  espoenter? 

2.  Confusion  of  V  and  F.  This  is  common  in  Anglo- 
Norman  and  resembles  the  confusion  of  t  and  d  (cf.  p.  97). 
Cases  occur  as  early  as  Gaimar  {nafrer,  jofne)?  I  notice 
in  Aspremoyit,  43,  life  (=  Uve),  Apocalypse,  144,  512,  escriferai, 
452,  chefuz  (both  v  and /are  seen  in  servfs,  2). 

W 

45.  W  was  a  letter  much  favored  in  Anglo-Norman 
orthography,  from  the  date  of  the  earliest  texts.  In  the 
Cmnb.  Psalt.  it  is  used  in  six  different  ways,  as  shown  by 
the  words  mvrnement,  esivanlerai,  ewes,  ow  (oti),  towe  (tue), 
swatume}  Similar  uses  in  other  texts  are  referred  to  by 
Stimming.^  It  will  be  seen  that  in  nearly  all  the  lo  takes 
the  place  of  the  half-consonantal  u.  This  usage  is  con- 
sidered as  peculiar  to  Anglo-Norman,  arising,  of  course, 
under  English  influence.  W  is  used  for  vu  in  Boeve :  iclt, 
wnt,  etc.,  and  for  v  simply  in  Bible  Fragment,  wus,  3,  112, 
526,  689,  etc. 

J 

46.  The  only  j  we  note  here  is  the  one  of  which  Stim- 
ming  makes  an  especial  study ;  ^  that  is,  the  inorganic  j 
inserted  to  break  hiatus,  as  baier  (bad are),  chaier  (cadere), 
etc.  It  is  written  either  as  y  or  i.  It  is  peculiar  to  Anglo- 
Norman,  in  that  it  occurs  only  before  the  accented  syllable, 
whereas  the  parasitic  i  found  in  eastern  and  northeastern 
France  appears  after  all  vowels  in  all  positions. 

For  R  -f  J,  N  +  J,  see  under  the  consonant  r,  p.  90,  §  37, 3. 

1  summing,  p.  219.  ^  p^i^^  Boeve,  p.  220. 

3  Und.  p.  220.  *  Schumann,  p.  38. 

6  Boeve,  p.  220.  ^  ibid.  pp.  237,  238. 


PHONOLOGY  101 


47.    S  BEFORE  A  CONSONANT 

We  now  enter  npon  one  of  the  most  important  chapters  in 
the  history  of  Anglo-Norman  consonants,  and  of  Old  French 
consonants  as  well,  because  the  Anglo-Norman  developments 
indicate  to  us  many  of  the  developments  for  general  Old 
French.  We  may  say,  in  a  summary  fashion,  that  phe- 
nomena observed  in  any  portion  of  French  territory  seem 
to  respond  to  general  tendencies ;  only  variations,  of  more 
or  less  importance,  are  peculiar  to  the  separate  dialects. 
Of  the  dialects,  however,  no  single  one  is  as  important, 
probably,  for  the  general  history  of  the  subject  as  is  Anglo- 
Norman. 

The  main  points  of  the  question  appear  at  once  when  we 
consider,  for  example,  the  English  words  blame,  meddle, 
forest,  which  preserve  to  this  day  Anglo-Norman  tendencies 
of  centuries  ago.  In  the  first  word  (blame)  we  note  complete 
disappearance  of  the  s  (of  blasmer),  in  the  second  (meddle) 
we  have  d  substituted  for  the  s  (of  mesler),  m  the  third 
(forest)  we  see  the  perseverance  of  the  Latin  s.  ^ 

The  first  extended  study  of  the  point  was  that  of  Kbritz. 
His  work  was  reviewed  by  Paris,^  and,  as  usual,  the  master's 
review  was,  in  effect,  a  wonderfully  clear  presentation  of 
the  whole  subject,  and  subsequent  grammarians^  have  had 
little  to  do  beyond  accepting  the  divisions  and  adopting  the 
conclusions  of  Paris.  The  etyma  showing  s  before  a  con- 
sonant must  be  considered  in  two  distinct  series :  first, 
s  +  J,  F,  v;  -f-  B,  D,  g;  L,  M,  N,  r;  second,  s  +  p,  t,  c.  in 
the  first  series  s  is  voiced,  in  the  second  it  is  voiceless. 

Of  especial  interest  in  Anglo-Norman  is  the  history  of  the 
s  before  I  and  n,  and  before  t.  For  s  +  Z  we  find  si,  dl,  II, 
and  disappearance  of  s:  isle,  idle,  ille,  He.      For  s  +  n  we 

1  Ueher  das  s  vor  consonant  im  Franzosischen,  Strassburg,  1885. 

2  Bom.  XV,  614-623. 

8  Cf.  Meyer-Llibke,  Gram.  I,  476,  §  529  ;  Nyrop,  Gram.  I,  3ol. 


102         MANUAL   OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

find  S7i,  (In,  gn  (sgn,  mi),  and  disappearance :  disner,  didner, 
digner,  (disgner,  areinnad),  diner.  For  s  +  t,  we  find  st,  lit 
{gilt,  slit),  and  disappearance:  ostel,  osalit  (eght,  oslitel),  otel. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  give  full  examples.  Koritz^  cites 
them  from  eight  early  texts  (though  some  of  his  examples 
are  to  be  controlled  by  later  editions  or  critiques  of  these 
texts).  In  addition  to  the  references  to  be  found  below, 
Stimming  gives  many  examples  from  various  texts.^ 

48.    S  BEFORE  L  AND  N. 

1.  General  Remarks  on  Substitute  Letters.  The 
first  point  to  be  noted  with  regard  to  every  combination 
which  we  shall  have  to  record  as  a  substitute  for  s  +  a  con- 
sonant (dl,  dn,  gn,  etc.)  is  that  in  the  case  of  each  one  there 
was,  for  a  time,  discussion  whether  the  substituted  letter 
had  a  phonetic  value,  or  represented  only  the  replacing  of 
one  silent  letter  by  another.  The  early  investigators  took 
the  latter  position,  as  a  rule,  as  we  shall  see  below.  Koritz,^ 
for  example,  considers  the  substitute  signs  as  silent  substi- 
tutes, and  dates  the  disappearance  of  the  s  +  consonant  from 
the  time  when  such  substitutes  began  to  be  used.  This  posi- 
tion was  one  which  might  easily  have  suggested  itself  to  early 
students  and  editors  (of  Anglo-Norman  texts)  when  they 
confronted  the  apparent  inconsistencies  in  the  Mss.  in  the 
transcribing  of  Anglo-Norman  representatives  of  Latin  words 
having  s  -f  consonant.  The  earliest  texts,  both  in  prose  and 
poetry,  contain  examples  of  nearly,  if  not  quite,  all  possible 
variants.  The  Q.  L.  R.,  for  example,  has  si,  U,  dl,  sn,  dn,  gn, 
nn.  There  is  now  no  question  but  that  these  letters  before 
the  I  and  n  signified  an  actual  pronunciation,  however  unem- 
phatic  and  transitory  that  pronunciation  may  have  been,  and 
that  they  preserve  some  of  the  stages  through  which  s  passed 
before  its  early  disappearance,  when  in  contact  with  I  and  ?i. 

1  pp,  10-18. 

2  Boeve,  p.  224  (dl);  p.  224  (dn);  p.  216  (gn);  pp.  xl,  liii,  225  (st). 
«  p.  32. 


PHONOLOGY  103 

2.  DL.  Mall  spoke  emphatically  of  the  d  of  adne  and 
medler  as  indicating  the  silencing  of  the  s.  More  minute 
study,  however,  soon  brought  out  the  fact  that,  since  this 
d  for  s  was  present  only  before  the  dental  liquids,  I  and  n 
(not  before  m,  for  example),  tliere  must  be  a  phonetic 
reason  for  such  limitation,  and  the  d  came  to  be  looked 
upon  as  a  step  in  the  complete  assimilation  of  the  s  to  the  I 
(or  7i).  The  s  was  a  voiced  fricative,  pronounced,  doubtless, 
with  but  little  energy,  and  it  was  but  little  separated  from 
the  voiced  stop  d,  whose  value  (in  adne  or  medler)  may  not 
even  have  been  that  of  a  complete  stop,  but  more  like  Eng- 
lish th  in  this} 

The  explanation  just  mentioned  seems  sufficient  from  a 
phonetic  point  of  view;  nevertheless,  others  have  been 
attempted.  For  instance,  mesler  >  mesdler  >  medler  has 
been  suggested.^  [The  mesdler  here  spoken  of  is  probably 
to  be  compared  with  disgner  and  oshtel,  all  three  being  cross- 
ings in  orthography  ;  that  is,  oshtel  =  ostel  +  ohtel;  disgner  = 
disner  -{-  digner ;  mesdler  =  mesler  +  med/er.] 

Again,  the  following  has  been  proposed,  and  by  no  less 
an  authority  than  Foerster :  ^  sl>  ll>  dl;  sn  >  7in  >  dn. 
His  idea  encountered  but  little  favor.* 

3.  LL.  The  usual  treatment  of  II  has  been  that  of  a  good 
illustration  of  consonant  assimilation  in  French ;  as  such,  it 
matters  little  whether  we  adopt  the  stage  si  >  II  directly  or 
si  >  dl  >  II.  The  II  occurs  in  the  Domesday  Book  {Gille- 
bert  <  Gislibert)  and  our  earliest  texts.^ 

We  have  the  suggestion,  new  so  far  as  Anglo-Norman  is 
concerned,  that  the  II  may  represent  an  I  mouillee,  and  much 

1  Cf.  Mall,  Cumpoz,  pp.  88  and  90  ;  Behrens,  Franz.  Stud.  V,  183  ; 
Schlosser,  Q.  L.  R.  p.  73  ;  Paris,  Bom.  XV,  618,  620. 

2  Merwart,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  8,  f.-n.  1. 

3  Zt.  XXII,  265,  f.-n.  1. 

4Cf.  Zt.  XXII,  513;  Bom.  XXVIII,  145;  Jhrshrcht.  V,  H.  2, 
p.  291. 

6  Zt.  IV,  556  ;  VIII,  362  ;  Bom.  XV,  618  ;  Schlosser,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  72. 


J 


104         MANUAL  OF  OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

is  brought  forward  in  favor  of  this  view.^  This  question 
merits  further  study,  and  several  additional  circumstances 
will  have  to  be  considered.  For  example,  there  is  this  much 
against  the  old  idea  of  assimilation ;  namely,  that  the  final 
stage  of  assimilation  of  two  consonants  is  usually  repre- 
sented by  a  single  remaining  consonant;  on  the  other  haud, 
Anglo-iSTorman  has  a  fondness  for  double  consonants,  notably 
^v>  II  and  rr  (cf.  above,  p.  81).     Since  the  supposed  develop- 

'  ment  of  /'  <  si  must  necessarily  be  compared  with  that  of 

n'  <  sn,  the  orthographic  signs  for  the  two  should  be  com- 
f  pared  :  we  find  U  and  nn ;  the  latter  is  sometimes  equivalent 

to  n'  (cf.  p.  88).  As  II  is  supposed  to  stand  for  V  <  si,  in 
how  far  does  nn  occur  for  n'  <.  sn?  It  is  found  in  areinnad 
in  Q.  L.  R.,  which  is  so  rich  in  variants  for  s  -f-  consonant.^ 
Does  nn  occur  for  sn  after  vowels  other  than  i ;  that  is,  is  it 
used  to  mark  assimilation  too,  as  II  supposedly  is  ?  Investi- 
gation along  these,  among  other,  lines  may  throw  new  light 
on  the  point. 

4.  DN.  The  d  here  is  the  same  as  that  described  under 
s  +  /  (p.  103, 2),  and  all  references  given  there  apply  equally 
well  here.  No  English  words  have  preserved  the  stage  dn^ 
corresponding  to  dl  {meddler). 

5.  GN.  Here  again  we  must  note  that  early  scholars 
thought  of  gn  as  a  mere  orthographic  variant  of  sn,  with  no 
phonetic  value,  and  they  discussed  whetlier  sn  was  changed 
to  gn  directly,  or  whether  sn  was  first  written  as  n,  and  this 
n  then  confused  with  gn.^ 

Suchier  ^  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  Q.  L.  R.  s  is 

1  By  Walberg,  Best.  pp.  Ixiv,  Ixv.  Paris  makes  no  objection  to  the 
suggestion  in  his  review  of  Walberg,  Bom.  XXIX,  590.  [On  Hne  14 
of  p.  590,  read  LXV  instead  of  XLV.] 

2  Schlosser,  p.  73. 
8  Cf.  Koschwitz,  UeberUef.  p.  27,  f.-n.  ;  Schumann,  Camh.  Psalt.  p. 

49  ;  Neumann,  Zt.  VIII,  383,  f.-u. 

"^  Zt.  I,  429 ;  cf.  Schlosser's  rectification  of  Suchier's  statement, 
q.  L.  H.  p.  73,  f.-n.  243. 


PHONOLOGY  105 

replaced  by  d  or  g,  according  to  the  consonant  following  the 
s;  speaking  of  gn,  he  says  he  thinks  it  equivalent  to  g-n 
(that  is,  both  pronounced),  but  not  n'. 

In  his  study  of  the  Q.  L.  R.  Schlosser^  said  there  was 
no  doubt  but  that  the  gn  <  sn  was  there  equivalent  to  n'. 
This  idea  is  developed  by  Paris  ^  in  his  review  of  Koritz,  in 
which  Paris  says  that  g  is  found  for  s  only  before  n  and 
after  i ;  that  is,  under  conditions  where  ign  usually  repre- 
sents n'.  If  ign  for  isn  occurred  in  Anglo-Norman  alone  we 
might  consider  it  a  mere  graphic  variant ;  but  it  is  found  in 
regions  quite  diverse.  It  is  probable  that  after  i,  the  voiced 
s  before  n  developed  a  sound  which  in  combination  with  n 
approached  n'  (cf.  below,  p.  107,  str  >  istr). 

49.    S   BEFORE   T. 

At  first  sight,  matters  here  seem  involved.  Before  the 
voiceless  stops,  s  surely  remained  in  early  Anglo-Norman  ; 
modern  English  words,  like  forest,  beast,  seem  to  point  to  its 
consistent  retention ;  yet,  in  later  Anglo-Norman,  not  only 
did  the  s  certainly  fall,  but  Anglo-Norman  orthography 
illustrates  the  stages  of  the  fall.  We  shall  treat  of  these 
points  below. 

1.  Early  Eetention  of  S.  The  early  monuments  do 
not  show  the  silencing  of  the  s.  Such  are  the  C^impoz,^ 
Bestiaire,'^  Oxf.  Psalt.,^  and  Camh.  Psalt.^  It  thus  becomes 
evident  that  the  s  had  not  fallen  in  France  at  the  time  of 
the  Norman  conquest,  and  that  the  consideration  of  s  before 
t  must  be  different  from  that  of  s  before  I  and  n.  Paris 
places  Anglo-Norman  and  Wallonian  together  as  illustrating 
the  keeping  of  the  s  before  p,  t,  and  c. 

2.  Fall  of  S. 

a.  Date.  We  have  a  famous  example,  for  a  long  time 
supposed  to  be  the  earliest  to  show  the  fall  of  the  s  -f  i ;  this 

1  p.  73.  2  Horn.  XV,  619. 

3  Mall,  p.  90.  *  Walberg,  p.  Ixvii. 

5  Harseim,  p.  323.  ^  Schumann,  p.  48. 


106    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

is  the  one  furnished  by  the  rhyme  est :  met,  1.  882  of  Phi- 
lippe's Bestiaire.  Walberg  ^  proposed  to  shatter  the  force  of 
the  old  example  by  offering  the  reading  s'en  est  in  place  of 
me{s)t,  which  reading  he  adopts  in  his  edition/  commenting 
again  upon  it.  The  new  reading  has  not  been  accorded  uni- 
versal acceptance;^  the  objection  to  it,  however,  is  based  on 
the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  question 
but  that  the  old  reading  is  so  doubtful  that  it  carries  no 
weight  as  exemplifying  the  fall  of  s  -|- 1} 

The  s  before  t  had  certainly  begun  to  fall  in  the  early  part 
of  the  thirteenth  century,  but  we  have  direct  evidence  that 
all  traces  of  the  s  had  not  been  lost  before  the  latter  part  of 
the  same  century.  This  testimony  is  offered  by  the  Ortlio- 
grapUa  Gallica,^  where  we  find  the  rule  that  when  s  is  joined 
to  t,  it  has  the  sound  of  h,  and  that  est,  plest  should  be  pro- 
nounced eglit,  pleght.  This  statement  reads  almost  like  a 
commentary  on  texts  near  the  OrthograpMa  in  time,  as  the 
Chevalier,  Dame  et  Clerc,  where  we  find  7niht  (118),  conulit 
(ISO),  Jiht  (508),  etc.,  and  mushter  (8),  oshtel  (27). 

b.  Stages.  The  rule  of  the  Ortliographia  Gallica  just  cited, 
while  proving  the  perseverance  of  the  .9,  shows,  too,  one  of 
the  stages  through  which  the  s  passed  before  disappearance, 
—  the  stage  h.  Neumann  ^  developed  this  idea,  based  among 
other  things  on  the  rhymes  of  German  poets  who  seem  to 
have  tried  to  transcribe  phonetically  words  borrowed  from 
the  French.  Koritz  ^  did  not  like  the  idea,  but  Neumann 
adhered  to  it,^  and  it  is  generally  accepted  now.  The  5  cer- 
tainly did  not  disappear  suddenly,  the  h  was  obviously  not 
a  mere  sign  of  the  lengthening  of  the  preceding  vowel,  but 
represents  one  of  the  many  series  of  changes  s  may  have 

1  Bom.  XXVII,  146.  ^  Best.  p.  Ixvii. 

3  Cf.  Rom.  XXIX,  591  ;  Jhrsbrcht  V,  H.  2,  p.  291  (Vising). 

4  Cf.  Vising,  I.e.,  and  Bom.  XV,  G21.  ^  pp.  8  and  49. 

6  Zur  Lmit-  unci  Flexionslehre  des  Altfranzdsischen,  Heilbronn,  1878, 
pp.  106-109. 

7  Svor  Cons.  p.  34.  ^  LithU.  VI,  243. 


PHONOLOGY  107 

undergone  before  disappearance.    Neumann  himself  does  not 
claim  long  life  for  the  h  stage.^ 

3.  English  Words  with  ST.  li  s  -\-t  did  undoubtedly 
disappear  in  Anglo-Norman,  how  are  we  to  account  for 
English  words  like  feast,  forest,  where  s  is  kept  ?  For  this 
we  have  two  suggestions :  that  of  Behrens,^  that  the  quies- 
cence of  the  s  was  gradual  and  not  completed  till  the  four- 
teenth century  ;  and  that  of  Paris/  that  the  English  borrowed 
such  words  from  French  before  s  was  silenced,  or  else  that 
the  pronunciation  of  the  s  was  weakened  ("  ebranlee  ")  at 
one  time,  and  afterwards  strengthened  again  ("  raffermie  "). 

4.  STE,>ISTE,.  It  is  worth  noting  in  connection  with 
the  keeping  of  s  -f  ^  in  the  early  texts  and  in  connection  with 
the  supposed  palatalizing  influence  of  the  s  on  a  following  I 
or  n  (cf .  above,  p.  104)  that  Horning  in  his  suggestive  note 
on  s  -f  consonant  >  ?/  *  explains  cheveistre  <  capistrum  in 
the  Gamh.  Psalt.  as  follows :  in  order  to  facilitate  the  enun- 
ciation of  the  group,  the  s  was  pronounced  softly  and  thus 
developed  a  y  out  of  the  group. 

5.  Inorganic  S  +  T.  It  goes  without  saying  that  we 
find  examples  of  s  inserted  before  a  t  where  it  has  no  ety- 
mological right,  and  from  the  time  of  our  earliest  texts 
{mercist,  nuist,  toste,  etc.).^  Cf.  below,  p.  121,  3,  b  where  this 
s  appears  in  certain  verb  forms. 

GENERAL   SUMMARY    (48-49) 

As  has  already  been  brought  out,  the  date  of  the  fall  of 
the  s  before  liquids,  and  that  before  t  are  quite  independent 
of  each  other.  In  the  case  of  the  liquids,  Anglo-Norman 
preserves  in  its  orthography  some  of  the  phonetic  phenomena 

1  Cf.  here  Paris,  Bom.  XV,  G21  ;  Behrens,  Franz.  Stud.  V,  183, 
and  the  confirmation  of  the  theory  presented  (incidentally)  by  F. 
Wulff  in  Mem.  Fhilol.  present,  a  G.  Paris  par  elev.  sued.,  Stockholm, 
1889,  p.  256.  2  I  c. 

3  Bom.  XV,  622,  f.-n.  *  Zt.  XXIIII,  414. 

s  References  and  examples,  Slimming,  Boeve,  227,  228. 


y 


108         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

attendant  upon  the  fall  before  I  and  n ;  consequently  we  may 
not  say  more  than  that  the  quiescence  of  the  s  before  I  and  n 
was  taking  place  in  French  at  the  time  of  the  Norman  Con- 
quest. In  the  case  of  the  other  liquids,  and  the  other  con- 
sonants of  the  first  series  formulated  by  Paris  (cf.  p.  101 -), 
the  fall  had  taken  place  before  the  Conquest.  Before  t  the 
fall  is  much  later,  instances  are  found  for  the  first  part  of 
the  thirteenth  century ;  a  trace  of  the  s  (I  refer  to  h)  is 
present  in  the  latter  part  of  that  century,  and  the  general 
fall  was  probably  not  complete  till  the  fourteenth  century. 
The  strong  hold  that  st  once  had  in  Anglo-Norman  is 
reflected  in  English  derivatives  like  feast  and  tempest. 

50.  S  INTERVOCALIC. 

Ano'lo-Norman  writers  were  inconsistent  in  their  use  of 
s  and  ss,  employing  them  indiscriminately  for  the  voiced 
and  voiceless  s.  A  favorite  method  of  indicating  voice- 
less s  was  by  the  use  of  sc ;  for  the  same  purposes  we  find 
z  and  c,  though  both  of  these  occur  for  voiced  s  also.^ 

51.  S  FINAL. 

It  is  very  evident  that  final  s  and  z  may  have  the  same 
value  in  Anglo-Norman  (that  of  s)  from  the  earliest  time.^ 
A  remarkable  exception  is  presented  by  Guillaume  de 
Berneville,  who  observes  an  absolute  distinction  between 
final  s  and  z,  while  all  traces  of  t  and  d  final  after  accented 
vowels  are  lost.  For  example,  -as,  -es,  -eis,  -us  never  rhyme 
with  -az,  -ez,  -eiz,  -uz.^  Other  similar  cases  are  cited  by 
Stimming,''  who  supposes  that  the  old  value  of  the  z  (that 
is,  ts)  may  have  been  preserved  in  some  instances,  as  is 
evident  from  English  proper  names  containing  Fitz. 

1  Examples  and  references,  Stimming,  Boeve,  224,  228  ;  cf.  Zt. 
XIII,  8G. 

2  Some  general  references  here  are,  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  226,  230  ; 
Walberg,  Best.  pp.  Ixiv,  xcii  ;  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  505,  §  561 ; 
II,  239,  §  173 ;  Vising,  ^tudej  p.  95. 

8  Paris  edition,  p,  xxxii.  *  Boeve,  p.  230. 


PHONOLOGY  109 

1.  Miscellaneous.  Several  orthographic  confusions  may- 
be noted  here.  In  the  Arundel  Psalt.,  where  s  follows  a 
consonant,  we  have  both  s  and  z  written :  oilsz,  jursz,  que- 
ransz,^  etc. ;  many  more  examples  might  be  cited ;  we  find 
also  seiesz  (verb),^  and  -stz  in  mercistz,  enlistzJ''  In  the  Camb. 
Psalt.  we  find  an  example  of  x  for  s  in  reix,  V,  1.  The  d  for  s 
in  the  same  text  is  a  variation  of  the  d  for  z  already  referred 
to  above  (p.  96)  :  Jlechisums  nod  genuilz  (XCIV,  6).  We 
note  one  example  of  t  for  s  in  Vie  Gregoire,  vert  (1.  2017). 

1  Zt.  XI,  517,  519,  521.  2  jj^ia.  XII,  9. 

8  Ibid.  XII,  9,  10. 


MORPHOLOGY 

DEFINITE  ARTICLE 

52.  1.  General.  In  the  Psalters  and  the  Lois  GuiUaume 
we  find  the  regular  Old  French  forms.  Li  is  not  axDOCopated 
in  the  Psalters  {Oxf.  and  Camb.)  ;  it  is  in  Q.  L.  R.  and  Lois 
Guillaume,  though  only  in  the  construction  Vum  (or  its  vari- 
ants, rem,  etc.).^ 

2.  Accusative  for  Nominative.  The  first  examples  of 
le  and  les  as  nominatives  that  I  have  noted  in  our  texts  are 
in  Chardri,  where  they  occur  by  the  side  of  the  regular  li, 
which  is  used  with  certain  restrictions,  le  and  les  being  the 
more  frequent.^  In  Auban,  too,  the  latter  are  found,  though 
not  as  frequently  as  liJ 

On  the  use  of  the  nominative  article  with  an  accusative 
noun,  see  below,  p.  113,  §  54,  1. 

3.  Confusion  of  Masculine  and  Feminine  Articles. 
The  use  of  the  masculine  le  for  feminine  la  is  old  in  Anglo- 
Norman,  dating  from  the  Bestiaire^  {le  gambe,  le  allegorie) 
and  Q.  L.  P.,  and  becoming  more  and  more  frequent  toward 
the  end  of  the  Anglo-Norman  period.  The  use  of  the  le 
seems  to  have  arisen  in  those  cases  in  which  the  vowel  (of 
la)  could  be  elided.  However,  detailed  study  of  this  point 
will  doubtless  reveal  irregularities  for  whose  origin  no  such 
explanation  exists. 

4.  Lu.  Two  interesting  forms  of  the  article  are  hi  and 
lui.  The  older  of  the  two  is  doubtless  lu,  variant  of  the 
accusative  le,  though  it  is  difficult,  in  some  cases,  to  distin- 

1  Schlosser,  p.  43  ;  Matzke,  p.  41.  ^  Koch,  p.  xxxviii. 

8  Uhlemann,  p.  621.  ^  Walberg,  p.  Ixxiv. 

110 


MORPHOLOGY  111 

guish  when  la  is  an  article  and  when  a  variant  of  the  pro- 
nominal form  lui.  Lu  is  found  in  the  Arundel  Psalt. :  en 
lu  seignur,^  in  Quatre  Livres  des  Rois,^  in  Fantosme  (1.  290), 
in  Brandan,^  and  it  is  made  the  subject  of  a  special  note  by 
Meyer  in  connection  with  Angier.''  It  is  found  in  Vie  St. 
Thomas,  too  (II,  34,  il  e  lu  mi),  and  often  in  the  Pderinage. 
This  lu  has  been  noted  especially  as  the  equivalent  of  del, 
that  is,  the  genitive.  It  occurs  in  Auhan  (62,  as  nosces  lu 
her,  991,  le  cors  lu  martir),^  often  in  the  P^lerinage  (882,  la 
femme  lu  rei,  852,  la  Jille  lu  rei),  and  a  number  of  times  in 
the  Vie  St.  Thomas  (III,  19, 118 ;  IV,  100).  There  is,  prob- 
ably, nothing  distinctive  about  such  nsage,  it  corresponding 
to  general  Old  French,  as  nosces  le  her,  etc. 

5.  Lui.  Even  if  lu  be  the  original  form,  it  was  never 
used  with  the  frequency  which  we  note  for  lui.  Lui  can  be 
graphic  variant,  in  Anglo-Norman,  of  either  lu  or  li  (cf.  p.  80, 
§  33,  1).  Consequently  we  lind  lui  as  nominative  and  accusa- 
tive singular,  and  nominative  plural.  Examples  are  given 
by  Stimming,^  to  which  are  to  be  added  some  from  the  PUe- 
rinage  (788,  la  gent  lui  rei),  from  Angier^  {lui  vilein),  and 
from  the  Apocalypse  (65,  p.  202,  lui  dreins) .  It  will  be  seen 
that  most  of  the  texts  cited  are  of  a  comparatively  late  date, 
Gaimar  and  Angier  being  the  exceptions. 

Stimming  cites  instances  of  lui  as  feminine  singular  (from 
two  texts). 

6.  Miscellaneous.  In  addition  to  lu,  mentioned  above, 
we  note  the  following  forms  from  the  Arundel  Psalt.  which 
are  not  cited  from  any  other  text,  as  far  as  I  know :  leu  {en 
leu  cuer)  ;  lau  {lau  tue  glorie)  ;  leis  {leis  2yeissuns).^  In  each 
of  these  cases  the  extra  vowel  in  the  form  of  the  article 
seems  to  anticipate  the  corresponding  vowel  in  the  word 
following  the  article. 

1  Zt.  XII,  21.  2  Ed.  Michel,  p.  434. 

3  Brekke,  p.  48.  *  Bom.  XII,  199. 

Ji  Uhlemann,  p.  577.  ^  Boeve,  p.  xii. 

7Cloran,  p.  57.  »  zt.  XII,  31  ;  XI,  529,  620. 


112         MANUAL  OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

ADJECTIVES 

53.  The  only  point  we  have  to  note  here  —  beyond  re- 
ferring to  forms  like  vifs  (whose  history  is  the  same  as  that 
of  nouns  like  colps,  p.  113,  2)  and  beyond  recording  that  in 
Anglo-Norman  we  must  not  expect  a  masculine  or  feminine 
noun  to  be  preceded  or  followed  consistently  by  the  cor- 
responding masculine  or  feminine  form  of  adjective  or  par- 
ticiple —  is  the  early  appearance  of  f eminines  of  the  graxdis, 
FOLLis  type  with  an  -e.  The  Cumpoz,  Oxf.  Psalt.,  and  Bran- 
dan  show  fole,  forte,  sueve,  ardante,  etc.,  by  the  side  of  the 
older  fo7i,  ardant,  suef,  etc.^  The  new  feminines  abound  in 
Angier :  quele,  tale,  ■passante,  etc.^ 

For  the  form  tuit  used  in  the  singular  as  well  as  plural, 
of.  above,  p.  68,  §  21,  4.  In  Vie  St.  Edmond,  2930,  we  have 
one  of  the  rare  examples  of  beleisur.^ 

NOUNS 

54.  We  shall  treat  here  of  the  substitution  of  accusative 
for  nominative ;  of  the  peculiar  forms  ne/s,  versus,  etc. ;  and 
refer  to  some  miscellaneous  points. 

1.  Accusative  for  Nominative.  The  origin  of  the 
reduction  of  the  declension  from  two  cases  (nominative  and 
accusative)  to  one  (accusative)  is  usually  associated  with 
Anglo-Norman;  the  justice  of  the  tradition  is  derived,  not 
from  the  non-appearance  of  the  phenomenon  at  an  early 
date  elsewhere  than  in  Anglo-Norman,  but  from  the  consist- 
ency that  marks  the  reduction  in  Anglo-Norman.  To  ilhis- 
trate  our  meaning,  we  find  that  in  Norman,  for  example, 
traces  of  the  change  are  to  be  detected  already  before  the 
year  1180  in  Roman  du  Mont  Saint  Michel,  and  the  change 
is  marked  in  Guillaume  le  Clerc  (first  part  of  the  fourteenth 
century) ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  never  met  with  in 
AVace    (1125-1174)."*     In  Anglo-Norman,  on   the   contrary, 

1  Cf.  Mall,  p.  100  ;  Hammer,  p.  114  ;  Brekke,  pp.  40,  44  ;  Meyer- 
Lubke,  Gram.  II,  80,  §  GO.  2  ^^jw.  XII,  199. 

8  Cf .  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  93,  §  66.     «  Paris,  Vie  St.  Gilles,  p.  xxi. 


MORPHOLOGY  113 

examples  are  found  in  an  iminterrupted  succession;  for 
example,  the  Ctimpoz,^  Lois  Guillaume,^  Oxf.  Psalt.,^  Camb. 
Psalt.,*  Brandari,^  Angler,^  Chardri/  Vie  St.  Thomas,^  Boeve,^ 
A7nadas,^^  Chevalier,  Dame  et  Clerc,^^  Auhan,^"  Donner,^^  etc. 

The  nature  and  manner  of  this  change  are  studied  by 
Koschwitz^^  for  the  Oxf.  Psalt.  Mall,  too  (I.e.),  studies 
irregularities  such  as  nominative  article  or  adjective  with 
accusative  noun.  We  must  not  forget  that  the  opposite 
process  of  the  one  referred  to  occurs;  that  is,  the  use  of 
nominative  for  accusative.^^ 

For  the  time  order  of  this  phenomenon  in  Anglo-Norman 
as  compared  with  other  dialects  we  have  several  statements.^^ 

Brekke^^  attempted  statistics  to  show  that  the  author  of 
the  Brandan  was  more  careful  than  Philippe  de  Thaiin  in  his 
use  of  the  cases ;  Brekke  resents  having  his  author  classed 
with  Philippe  in  this  connection.  A  similar  line  of  inves- 
tigation, that  is,  trying  to  draw  deductions  as  to  purity  of 
language  from  the  comparative  frequency  with  which  two 
given  authors  avail  themselves  of  a  given  phenomenon,  has 
never  been  followed  to  any  extent. 

2.  Nefs,  Sacs,  Colps,  etc.  These,  and  similar  forms, 
are  very  frequent  in  Anglo-Norman;  for  example,  Oxf. 
PsalQ^  Camb.  PsalQ^  Q.  L.  B.,"^  Brandan,^^  Chardri,^'-^ 
Boeve,^  and  Auban.'^^    They  do  not  occur  in  the  Cumpoz,^ 

1  Mall,  pp.  97-100.  2  Matzke,  p.  1. 

3  Zt.  I,  569  ;  II,  485.  *  Ibid.  I,  569. 

5  Brekke,  p.  81.  ^  Meyer,  p.  198  ;  Cloran,  p.  54. 

7  Zt.  Ill,  594.  '  «  Meyer,  p.  xxviii. 

9  Stimining,  p.  xiv.  ^^  Zt.  XIII,  86. 

11  Bom.  I,  72.  12  Uhlemann,  p.  613. 

13  Bom.  XXV,  532.  i*  Zt.  II,  485.  i^  Ibid.  IT,  488. 

16  Meyer-Llibke,  Gram.  II,  39,  §  25  ;  Such.  Fran^ais  et  Provencal, 
p.  163  ;  (in)  Grober's  Qrundriss,  I,  638  ;  Warnke,  Zt.  IV,  234. 

17  p.  81.  18  Zt.  I,  569.  1^  Schumann,  p.  46,  c. 
20  Schlosser,  pp.  m,  80.  21  Hammer,  p.  108 ;  Brekke,  pp.  25-30. 
22  Koch,  p.  xxxiv.                       23  stimming,  pp.  xiv,  181,  220. 

24  Uhlemann,  p.  598.  25  Mall,  p.  105. 

I 


114         MANUAL  OF  OLD   FKENCH  DIALECTS 

with  the  exception  of  verms,  nor  need  we  expect  to  find  them 
to  the  exclusion  of  nes,  sas,  etc.,  in  the  other  texts. 

This  set  of  words  must  be  studied  in  connection  with  the 
question  of  the  value  of  final  s,  which,  apparently,  was  not 
stable.  The  early  adoption  of  the  accusative  for  the  nomi- 
native probably  impressed  the  form  of  the  accusative  on 
the  minds  of  our  scribes,  and  the  nominative,  under  consider- 
ation, doubtless  represented  to  them  the  traditional  -s  (of  the 
nominative)  added  to  this  accusative.  The  scribes  iusert 
nefs,  sacs,  coJps,  etc.,  even  in  rhymes  (as  Chardri,  Boeve, 
Auban),  but  thereby  again  demonstrate  uncertainty  in  the 
use  of  their  own  language,  because  evidence  is  against  the 
pronunciation  of  the  p,  b,  v,  c  -\-  s  in  rhyme. 

3.  Miscellaneous.  I  append  here  some  references  on 
the  following  points :  confusion  of  genders  ;  ^  neuter  nomina- 
tives, jugement,  conseil,  etc.  ;^  formation  of  compound  nouns  ;^ 
masculine  pere  type  with  s ;  ^  feminine ^ewr  type  without  s;^ 
distinction  between  ans  and  anz,fils  o^ndijilz.^  We  note,  too, 
further  instances  of  the  uncertainty  of  our  scribes,  in  that 
they  sometimes  omit  an  etymological  post-tonic  e  before  flex- 
ional  s  (as  colurs  =  colubras,  pers  =  petras),  and  again 
they  insert  an  inorganic  e  (as  coupes  —  colps,  manteles  = 
mantels,  etc.).'^ 

PERSONAL  PRONOUNS 

55.   FIRST  PERSON. 

1.  Je  and  Joe.  Our  older  texts  offer  nothing  striking 
here.  Already  in  Chardri  je,  as  tonic  form,  rhymes  in  e  : 
pri  je  :  marche,  clemant  je  :  cunge,  etc.®  The  form  joe  is  made 
the  subject  of  a  note  by  Paris  in  his  edition  of  the  Donnei.^ 
He  says  that  he  had  usually  regarded  joe  as  a  variant  of  jo 

1  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  450,  §  302.        2  j^jvZ.  II,  13,  §  8. 
8  Ibid.  II,  630,  §  547.  *  Ibid.  II,  33,  §  22. 

6  Ibid.  II,  32,  §  21  (bis).  ^  Litblt.  VI,  116. 

7  Stimming,  Boeve,  pp.  182,  183.        ^  Stlirzinger,  Orth.  Gall.  p.  45. 

a  Bom.  XXV,  532,  f.-n.  6. 


MORPHOLOGY  115 

or  jue,  but  that  in  the  Donnei  we  have  to  suppose  a  dissyl- 
labic pronunciation,  joe.  He  refers  to  joe  as  an  Anglo- 
Norman  form.  The  same  occurs,  for  example,  in  the  Bible 
Fragment,  line  793,^  and  coe  is  often  used  in  the  same  text, 
as  116,  137,  194,  etc.  (cf.  tue,  below,  §  56,  1). 

2.  Mi.  This  form  is  cited  by  Vising,^  who  says  it  is  equiv- 
alent to  mei  {moi)  in  Fantosme  and  Adgar.  It  occurs  also 
in  Picard,  Norman,  and  Lorraine,  and  is  doubtless  the  mi 
referred  to  by  Meyer-Liibke  ^  as  derived  from  mihi.  It  is 
late  and  rare  in  Anglo-Norman,  more  frequent  elsewhere. 

56.    SECOND   PERSON. 

1.  Tu  AND  Vous.  An  interesting  syntactical  phenome- 
non arises  here ;  that  is,  the  confusion  of  tu  and  vous,  the 
two  being  employed  without  any  apparent  distinction  in 
meaning  in  one  and  the  same  sentence.     Suchier  speaks  of 

this  point.'* 

The  form  tue  occurs  in  Aru7idel  Psalt.;^  if  not  a  corrupt 
reading,  it  is  worthy  of  attention  in  connection  with  jue,  and 
recalls  the  early  Italian  tue.^ 

2.  Ous.  In  Donnei,  816,  973,  we  find  jous  (  =  je  vous) 
and  quideus  (=  cuidiez  vous).  Similar  forms  occur  in 
Chardri  and  Ipomedon.  The  ous  for  vous  is  not  uncommon 
in  Old  French.^ 

57.   THIRD   PERSON. 

Here  I  shall  speak  of  the  use  of  the  tonic  for  the  atonic 
forms,  and  of  the  general  confusion  of  forms,  singular  and 
plural,  masculine  and  feminine. 

1  Bom.  XVI,  206.         2  luul  V,  68.  ^  Qram.  II,  102,  §  75. 

*  Auban,  p.  8.     Cf.  additional  references  in  Zt.  V,  164. 

6  zl  XI,  521.  6  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Ital.  Gram.  §  148.  (In 
Italian  translation,  §  88.)  _      ^    , 

7  Cf.  Bom.  XXV,  533.  Tobler's  original  article  on  the  point  is  m 
Zt  VIII  496  ;  additions  to  this  were  made  by  Behrens,  Zt.  XIII,  408. 
Cf.  also,  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  I,  379,  §429;  II,  110,  §78,  and  408, 
§325. 


116         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

1.  Tonic  Instead  of  Atonic  Forms.  This  phenome- 
non, quite  common  throughout  Old  French,  is  very  marked 
in  Anglo- jSTorman  from  the  time  of  the  earliest  texts ;  as 
Cumpoz,  Oxf.  Psalt.,  Arundel  Psalt.,  Alexis,  etc. :  jetent  sei, 
set  pastierent,  jo  toi  pri,  etc.  (It  goes  without  saying  that 
the  confusion  is  not  confined  to  the  third  person.)  Koch, 
in  his  edition  of  Chardri,  made  distinctions  (and  deter- 
mined his  readings  thereby)  according  to  the  position,  or 
rather  significance,  of  the  given  pronoun  in  the  sentence ; 
but  in  this  he  was  criticized  by  Mussafia.^  In  Angier^ 
we  find  that  the  use  of  atonic  forms  is  accounted  a  rarity. 

2.  Confusion  of  Forms  in  the  Singular. 

a.  Masculine,  lu  =  lui,  lu  =  lo.  We  have  already  referred 
(p.  110, 4)  to  lu;  both  lu  and  li  (which  occurs  here  as  through- 
out Old  French)  are  regular  phonetic  reductions  of  lui  in 
Anglo-iSTorman  (cf.  p.  80,  §  33,  1).  Lu  occurs  frequently  in 
Chardri  and  Angier  :  quant  il  lu  vit,  a  lu  apparut,  etc.  Any 
syntactical  principle  indicating  a  preference  for  lui  or  for  lu 
or  for  li  is  not  apparent ;  Cloran  ^  suggests  that  in  the  Dia- 
logues Gregoire  lu  after  prepositions  is  rare. 

We  must  note,  too,  that  lu  is  used  for  accusative  lo  in 
the  same  texts  in  which  hi  is  found  for  lui.  Koschwitz^ 
suggested  a  distinction  between  Anglo-Norman  lu  and  gen- 
eral French  le,  saying  that  lu  goes  directly  back  to  lo 
(that  is,  it  is  a  variant  of  lo),  while  le  is  derived  from  lo 
through  the  stage  Id.  For  is  =  il,  see  below  (3,  a)  under 
plural  forms. 

b.  Feminine.  I  give  here  some  references  on  the  follow- 
ing points :  use  of  lui,  le,  and  la  as  equivalents  of  feminine 
dative  li-,  use  of  le  for  la,  accusative ;  ^  for  le  =  ele,  see  just 
below,  under  lei  =  ele ;  el  =  ele  is  found  in  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury in  Norman  and  Anglo-Norman.^     For  the  correspond- 

1  Cf.  Koch,  p.  xxxix  ;  Zt.  Ill,  596.     2  cf.  Meyer,  p.  199 ;  Cloran,  p.  56. 
8  p.  57.  ■*  UeherUefcmnti^  p.  25.  ^  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  xxii. 

6  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  109,  §  78 ;  Such.  Franqais  et  Pro- 
vencal., p.  136  ;  Walberg,  Best.,  p.  Ixxiv. 


MORPHOLOGY 


117 


ing  plural  els  —  eles,  see  below;  lei  for  la  is  cited  by  Cloran^ 
for  the  Dialogues  Gregoire;  de  lei  soccoure,  etc. ;  a  variant  of 
this  lei  in  the  same  text  is  le :  en  le  entrerent,  etc. 
3.   Confusion  of  Forms  in  the  Plural. 

a.  is  =  il.  is  occurs  for  both  singular  and  plural  —  for  il 
and  ils.  So  far  as  I  know  it  is  peculiar  to  Angier :  qu^is  eit, 
qu'is  orent,  etc.  It  occurs  in  both  his  Vie  and  his  Dialogues 
Gregoire.^ 

b.  es  =  eles.  This  is  given  for  Angier  by  Meyer  as  the 
feminine  corresponding  to  the  is  just  mentioned;  the  only 
instance  cited  is,  deu  donst  qu'es  puessent;  Cloran  does  not 
cite  it  for  the  Dialogues. 

c.  il  =  eles.  This  usage  is  referred  to  by  Suchier  ^  as 
occurring  often  in  Anglo-Norman. 

d.  els = eles.    This  corresponds  to  el = elle  mentioned  above. 

e.  les  =  lis,  dative  plural.  Eeferences  for  this  peculi- 
arity are  given  by  Stimming/  who  attributes  the  use  (and 
that  of  lu7'  as  accusative)  to  English  influence;  the  same 
occurs  in  Wallonian  and  Picard,  however.^ 


UNIVERoi 

OF 


DEMONSTRATIVE  PRONOUNS 

58.  Here  we  note  the  following:  eel  and  cest  occur  early  for 
the  nominative  in  Norman  and  Anglo-Norman ;  ^  the  neuter 
eel,  particularly  in  the  locution  puet  eel  estre  is  confined,  for 
the  most  part,  to  these  two  dialects ;  ^  the  neuter  ceo  occurs 
often  as  an  adjective  in  Boeve  (ceo  trait ur),  but  this  is  a 
peculiarity  of  texts  of  comparatively  late  date ;  ^  ist,  mascu- 
line, and  iste,  feminine,  seldom  found  in  general  Old  French, 
occur  frequently  in  Dialogues  Gregoire.^ 

1  p.  58.  2  Meyer,  p.  199  ;  Cloran,  p.  55. 

3  Zt.  IV,  419  ;  cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  110,  §  78. 
*  Boeve,  p.  xxii. 

5  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  115,  §  83,  and  Vising,  Zt.fr.  Spr.  u. 
Lit.  XXII,  H.  2,  p.  25.  ^  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  132,  §  96. 

7  Ibid.  II,  135,  §  98  ;  Walberg,  Best.  p.  Ixxxv. 

8  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  xxv  ;  cf.Vising,  ref.  above.     ^  Cloran,  p.  57. 


118         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

POSSESSIVE   PRONOUNS 

59.  There  is  little  that  is  characteristic  to  be  noted  here ; 
variations  are  coufiued  for  the  most  part  to  the  forms  of  the 
feminine. 

1.  rp]MiMNE.  Frequently  we  find  mei  =  ineie,  tu  =  tue, 
which  illustrate  the  loss  of  post-tonic  e  (cf.  p.  63,  §  18, 1,  a) ; 
these  forms  are  frequent  in  the  Psalters,  especially  the 
Camb.  Psalt.  (as  XXX,  16,  en  la  tu  main;  LVI,  7,  mei 
aneme),  also  in  Arundel  Psalt.,  moi  oreille,  mei  ureisun} 

We  have  already  spoken  of  the  feminine  article  le  for  la 
(p.  110,  3) ;  we  find  the  possessives  sa  and  ma  replaced  by  se 
and  me  in  our  earliest  texts,  as  Camb.  Psalt.  LXI,  11,  se  owe; 
Arundel  Psalt.,  se  felonie,^  and  similar  cases  in  the  Q.  L.  II? 

2.  Miscellaneous  Forms.  We  note  in  the  Camb.  Psalt. 
mis,  tis  (XXVI,  4,  9,  16,  etc.)  constantly  where  the  Oxf. 
Psalt.  has  mes,  tes.  The  former  shows  also  meins  (XII,  4), 
mieins  (XVII,  34),  and  nod  for  nos  (cf.  above,  p.  109,  §  51, 
1).  In  the  Arundel  Psalt.  we  note  mens,  meiens,  muen,  ten.* 
In  Vie  Gregoire  we  note  sis  (64,  655)  and  sous  (1730, 1741). 

RELATIVE  PRONOUNS 

60.  Our  texts  offer  nothing  extraordinary  here;  M  early 
makes  a  place  for  itself  beside  qui  or  chi ;  it  is  found  in 
Cumpoz,  Lois  Guillaume,  the  Psalters,  and  Q.  L.  E.  with 
gradually  increasing  frequency.  In  the  accusative  ke  for 
que  appears  as  early  as  the  Camb.  Psalt.  and  Q.  L.  B 
Chardri  uses  ke,  as  well  as  ki,  for  the  nominative;  Koch 
changed  the  ke  to  ki  in  many  cases  (in  which  procedure 
Mussafia  did  not  agree  with  him).^  In  Boeve,  the  usual 
form  for  both  cases  is  ke. 

1  Cf.  Zt.  I,  569  ;  XII,  17,  48 ;  XI,  515.  '^  Zt.  XI,  519. 

3  Schlosser,  p.  8.  "  Zt.  XI,  516,  533  ;  XII,  5,  17. 

5  Matzke,  p.  li  ;  Such.  Lithlt.  XXII,  120,  f.-n.  2. 

6  Koch,  p.  xxxix ;  Zt.  Ill,  595. 


5 


MORPHOLOGY  119 

VERBS 

61.    INTERCHANGE   OF   CONJUGATIONS. 

This  process  is  a  most  frequent  one  in  Anglo-Norman. 
It  is  difficult  to  detect  any  underlying  principle,  because 
there  is  hardly  any  change  that  does  not  work  two  ways. 
In  Anglo-Norman,  as  in  general  French,  the  first  weak  con- 
jugation {-er  <  -are)  seems  to  exercise  the  greatest  power 
of  attraction,  though,  as  we  shall  see,  it  sometimes  suffers 
losses  to  other  conjugations. 

1.  -EiR  >  -ER.  We  have  here  a  change  that  is  character- 
istic of  our  dialect,  as  compared  with  French  of  the  conti- 
nent; it  seems  to  have  originated  in  Anglo-Norman,  and 
about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century.^  The  change  of 
conjugation  affected  the  infinitive  most  of  all ;  four  infini- 
tives were  altered  the  earliest  of  all,  setting  the  example  to 
the  rest;  these  were  aveir,  poeir,  saveir,  voleir  >  aver,  poer, 
saver,  voler.^  We  notice  voer  (for  veeir,  videre)  already  in 
the  Arundel  Psalt.,^  and  the  same  occurs  as  voier  (itravaillier) 
in  Vie  Gr ego  ire,  351. 

2.  -RE,  -iR  >  -ER.  This  change  is  later  than  the  one  first 
mentioned,  and  illustrates  the  strength  which  the  -er  conju- 
gation had  acquired  in  Anglo-Norman,  by  virtue  of  the 
older  change  (-eir  >  -er).  We  find  terier,  repenter,  attender, 
and  the  like,  in  the  course  of  the  thirteenth  century.* 

3.  -ER>-RE.  We  note  gettre,  leetre  (<laitier),  luttre  in 
Boeve,  Auban,  and  Bozon.^    Of.  above,  p.  91,  b. 

1  Cf.  LitbU.  IV,  311 ;  Such.  Fr.  et  Prov.  p.  23 ;  Meyer-Liibke, 
Gram.  II,  158,  §  117  ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  xxviii. 

2  Cf.  here  Paul  Meyer  in  Eom.  XVIII,  626,  and  his  long  note  on  the 
point  in  his  edition  of  Bozon,  p.  Ixii.  This  note  treats  also  of  other 
irregularities  in  the  Anglo-Norman  conjugation. 

3  Zt.  XII,  13,  23. 

*  Cf.  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  158,  §  117  ;  Such.  Auban,  p.  48. 
6  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,   Gram.  II,  1G7,  §  124  ;   Such.    A^iban,   p.    41  ; 
Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  xxix ;  Paul  Meyer,  Bozon,  p.  Ixiv. 


120    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

4.  -ER  >  -iR.  We  find  donir,  demorir,  mangir  (Otinel,  26), 
and  the  like.^ 

5.  -lER  >  -IR.  The  change  in  conjugation  here  affects 
more  especially  the  infinitive,  the  third  plural  preterite,  and 
the  past  participle:  lessir,froissirent,Jichi} 

6.  -oiR  AND  -DRE.  Anglo-Norman,  too,  furnishes  exam- 
ples of  these  varying  forms.  Already  in  the  Q.  L.  R.  we 
find  manoir  and  maindre.^ 

62.    PRESENT  INDICATIVE. 

1.   First  Person  Singular. 

a.  -e.  Our  texts  offer  nothing  remarkable  here,  and  from 
the  point  of  view  of  time  no  fixed  line  of  demarcation  may 
be  drawn  between  those  texts  showing  -e  (as  supporting 
vowel  or  analogical)  and  those  not  having  it.  It  is  present 
in  the  Brandan,^  while  Chardri,  later  and  careless  in  his 
grammar,  has  no  -e  ^  {pens,  merveil,  eim,  etc.),  nor  has  Aubau'^ 
nor  Guillaume  de  Berneville.^  Boeve  shows  -e  in  the  first 
person  present  of  the  first  weak  conjugation,  but  usually 
omits  it  for  the  third.^ 

b.  -c.  Quite  a  number  of  cases  of  this  ending  are  to  be 
noted  in  Anglo-Norman,  first  of  all  in  the  Cumpoz,^  Arundel 
Psalt.  (venclie),  ^^  and  Brandan}^  In  Angier  it  is  frequent ; 
Cloran^^  cites  aourc  (adoro),  comanc,  conseilc,  arc  (ardeo), 
tiejic,  perc  (perdo),  regierc,  sere,  etc.,  also  rench  and  renconch 
(record) ;  in  the  Vie  Gregoire  I  note  renc  (1843),  conmanc  (1950), 
pramec  (1100).  In  Boeve  we  have  renc}^  In  still  later  texts 
I  note  Otinel  {tienc,  12),  Melanges^*  (senk,  pleink),  Bible  Frag' 

1  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  164,  §  121 ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  xxix. 

2  Cf.  Such.  Auban,  p.  47  ;  Zt.  II,  343  ;  Bom.  XXVI,  88,  f.-n. 
8  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  172,  §  127. 

4  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  189,  §  136. 

6  Zt.  Ill,  596.  6  Uhlemann,  p.  622. 

7  Paris,  p.  xviii.  ^  Stimming,  p.  xxvi. 
»  Mall,  p.  110.                                ^^  Zt.  XII,  36. 

11  Brekke,  p.  55.  ^^  p.  59. 

18  Stimming,  p.  xxix.  i^  Rom.  IV,  376,  377. 


MORPHOLOGY  121 

ment  (venc,  825).  The  extent  of  this  phenomenon  and  the 
character  of  some  of  the  examples  indicate  that  we  may  not 
have  to  do  here  merely  with  an  orthographic  interchange  of 
final  t  and  c  (cf.  above,  p.  97,  c). 

2.  Second  Person  Singular. 

a.  -z.  Meyer-Liibke  ^  calls  attention  to  a  phenomenon  that 
is  encountered  particularly  in  Anglo-Norman  texts;  in  verbs 
whose  stems  end  in  labials,  as  deveir,  mover,  or  heivre,  the  s 
of  the  second  person  is  replaced  by  z,  as  Cumpoz,  deiz;  Bran- 
dan,  moz,  etc. 

b.  -is.  The  second  person  in  -is  is  sometimes  found,  con- 
sequent upon  the  substitution  in  orthography  of  post-tonic  i 
for  e  (cf.  above,  p.  Q>5,  3). 

3.  Third  Person  Singular. 

a.  Here  we  have  to  consider  the  question  of  the  t  (of  -et). 
Merwart^  gives  statistics  as  to  what  verbs  and  tenses  do 
or  do  not  show  the  t  in  Q.  L.  B.,  and  makes  reference  to 
the  discussions  of  Mall,  Paris,  Koschwitz,  etc.  Hammer^ 
studies  the  question  for  the  Brandan,  and  says  that  his  text 
and  the  Cumpoz  betray  the  same  state  of  affairs :  the  t 
remains  as  a  rule,  may  fall  for  the  sake  of  the  rhyme,  but 
elision  never  occurs  in  consequence.^  For  Guillaume  de 
Berneville,  Paris  finds  a  dozen  examples  of  the  retention  of 
the  t  (indicative  of  first  conjugation,  subjunctive  of  others).* 
In  a  foot-note  he  quotes  from  Suchier,^  to  the  effect  that  the 
elision  of  the  -e  did  not  take  place  in  the  verse  until  some 
time  after  the  t  had  ceased  to  be  pronounced. 

b.  St  =  t.  The  forms  dist,  fest,  vest  (vadit,  as  Vie  St. 
Edmond  of  Pyramus,  line  1362,  vest,  lest),  dust  (debuit), 
cunust,  morust,  are  to  be  explained  by  a  rule  recorded  in  the 
Orthographia  Gallica,^  which  says  that  in  the  present  and  pre- 
terite an  s  must  be  inserted  between  the  vowels  e,  i,  o,  u,  and 
the  t.'^    The  phenomenon  is  encountered  already  in  Gaimar. 

1  Gram.  II,  239,  §  173,  2  q_  l^  7^.  p.  3.  8  p.  103. 

*  Cf.  Mall,  p.  109 ;  Brekke,  p.  56.  ^  p.  xix. 

*  Beimpredigt,  p.  xxxiii.  '^  p.  8.  ^  Cf.  Litblt.  VI,  116. 


122  MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

4.  First  Person  Plural.  Here  we  refer  to  the  state- 
ment already  made  (cf.  above,  p.  83)  as  to  the  early  identity 
of  m  and  n  in  the  endings  -urns,  -wis  (-oms,  -ons),  which 
rhyme  together  already  in  the  Cumpoz. 

5.  Second  Person  Plural. 

-et  {-ecT)  =  -ez.  This  peculiar  form  is  found  in  the  Camb. 
Psalt}  (devet,  pernet,  entendet,  corned,  seied) ;  in  the  Arundel 
PscdtJ  (adoret,  aprimet,  pabUet);  Brandan^  (seet,  prenget)) 
Chev.  Dame  Clerc,  freiet,  553,  and  F^lerinage  (Jiuyiiset,  721). 
The  confusion  of  t  (d)  and  z  has  already  been  considered 
(cf.  above,  p.  96)  ;  it  is  entirely  orthographic  in  Anglo- 
Norman,  and  in  that  respect  peculiar  to  our  dialect. 

6.  Third  Person  Plural.  We  have  to  note  here  the 
ending  -ihit  (cf.  above,  post-tonic  e,  p.  65,  3),  and  an  oxytone 
accentuation  (to  be  noted  later  for  the  imperfect  indicative 
and  subjunctive).  Examples  for  this  latter  I  have  observed 
only  in  the  corrupt  Apoccdypse ;  here  in  two  instances  we 
see  Uasphement :  habitant  (110), portent :  seint  {^xi^civ^i,  800). 
Often  we  find  the  present  ending  in  -unt,  as  a  rule  to  rhyme 
with  sunt  or  unt ;  for  example,  sigyiijiunt  :  sunt  (73),  liabi- 
tunt :  sunt  (960),  etc.  (frequently). 

63.    PRESENT  SUBJUNCTIVE. 

1.  Forms  in  -ge  (augez  =  aillez,  garge  =  garde,  perge  — 
perde,  prengez  =  preniez,  etc.).  Similar  forms  are  very  popu- 
lar in  Anglo-Norman.  A  few  references  are  :  Camb.  Psalt} 
{aherged),  Arundel  Psalt.'^  (aicge),  Angier,^  Chardri,^  Boeve,^ 
and  Apocalypse  {auges,  236). 

2.  First  and  Second  Person  Singular.  The  early 
appearance  of  the  (analogical  or  the  supporting)  -e  here  is 
characteristic   of  Anglo-Norman  as  compared  with  conti- 

1  Zt.  I,  570.  2  p)ia,  XII,  15,  23,  48. 

3  Cf.  Brckke,  p.  56 ;  LtblL  VI,  371. 

4  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  19G,  §  138.  ^  Ibid.  227,  §  1G3. 
6  Zt.  XII,  35.  '  Meyer,  p.  200  ;  Cloran,  p.  59. 
8  Koch,  p.  xl.                                ®  Stimming,  p.  xxxi. 


MORPHOLOGY  123 

nental  dialects ;  it  is  esi^ecially  prevalent  in  the  first  and 
second  persons.^  It  is  found  in  the  Psalters  and  the  Q.L.  R. 
(cf.,  on  the  contrary,  the  third  person  deliurt  <  delivrer  in 
the  latter  text).  The  -e  is  the  exception  in  the  Lois  Guil- 
laume,^  and  in  some  later  texts,  like  Guillaume  de  Berneville 
and  Aicban,  it  does  not  appear.^  The  examples  from  Boeve 
illustrate  the  distinction  between  the  first  and  second  per- 
sons as  compared  with  the  third;  forms  without  -e  are 
confined  to  the  third  person."* 

3.  Third  Persox  Singular.  We  have  just  considered 
the  late  establishment  of  -e  in  this  person.  The  history 
of  the  final  -t  is  the  same  as  that  of  t  in  the  corresponding 
form  of  the  indicative.  Some  circular  combinations  result 
from  the  absence  of  the  -e  after  palatal  stems ;  for  example, 
Oxf.  Psalt.  cerst  {chercher),  esculurst  (esculurgier),  Camb. 
Psalt.  juszt  (juger);  cerche,  juge,  etc.,  occur,  too,  however.^ 

64.    IMPERFECT   INDICATIVE. 

The  points  of  interest  here  are  confined,  for  the  most 
part,  to  the  first  weak  conjugation. 

1.  Oldest  Forms.  These  were  oive  or  one,  found  in  the 
Psalters  and  the  Q.  L.  R. ;  in  the  third  singular  the  post-tonic 
-e  is  dropped,  out  being  the  regular  form.^  By  the  side  of 
owe,  oue  appear  oe,  ot,  oent  in  the  Camb.  Psalt., '^  though  they 
become  general  only  in  later  texts.  These  are  to  be  consid- 
ered as  further  developments  out  of  oive,  oue,  and  not  vice 
versa.^  The  -ue,  -ut  where  found  ^  are  doubtless  variants  of 
the  -oe,  -ot,  -one,  -out,  due  to  the  scribes  (cf.  above,  p.  73). 

2.  -EiE,  -oiE.  The  introduction  of  these  in  place  of  -oue, 
-oe,  did  not  begin  in  western  French  territory  as  early  as  in 

1  Cf.  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  207,  §  146  ;  LithU.  V,  70. 

2  Matzke,  p.  li.  ^  Uhlemann,  p.  622. 

4  Stimming,  p.  xxvii.  ^  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  221,  §  157. 

6  Such.  Gram.  p.  31.  '  Ficlite,  pp.  24,  25. 

8  Cf.  Mall,  Ciimpoz,  pp.  66,  67  ;  Lucking,  Aeltst.  Fr.  Mund.  p.  210. 
®  Cf.  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  189. 


124         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

other  parts,^  and  consequently  it  is  not  a  charaoteristic  of 
our  first  texts.  In  Q.  L.  R.  -eit  occurs  {rjuardeit,  passeit) 
but  only  in  five  cases  as  compared  with  105  instances  in 
which  -out  is  retained.^  The  rujowe  {rujir)  of  the  Oxf.  Psalt., 
and  the  enqiierrout  of  Chardri  illustrate  the  prevalence  of 
-oue. 

A  favorite  method  of  studying  the  beginnings  of  the  pro- 
cess of  substitution  has  been  that  of  noting  the  rhyming  of 
-oue  with  -oie  (-eie).  Difficulties  are  encountered  in  several 
directions  :  some  texts  will  rhyme  the  imperfects  of  a  given 
conjugation  only  with  imperfects  of  the  same  conjugation, 
as  Guillaume  de  Berneville,"'^  for  example.  Again,  on  account 
of  the  possibility  of  choosing  from  variant  readings,  what 
one  editor  claims  as  a  rhyme  of  -out: -eit  may  be  discarded 
by  another  student  of  the  same  text.  For  example,  Kupfer- 
schmidt^  noted  the  rhyme  despendeit :  soldout  for  Gaimar; 
Vising^  rejected  the  same.  (In  another  place,  however, 
Vising  cites  four  cases  of  the  rhyme  out: eit  in  Gaimar's 
Havelok.^ 

The  first  detailed  study  of  the  point  is  that  of  Suchier,^ 
who  considers  the  usage  of  five  (minor)  texts.  Evidently 
the  substitution  was  not  universal  among  poets  in  the  thir- 
teenth century,  though  the  tendency  toward  general  adop- 
tion of  -eie  is  to  be  noted  from  the  beginning  of  that  century 
and  gradually  becomes  accentuated.  Angier  uses  -ot  and  -eit 
in  the  singular,  but  -oient  always  in  the  plural.^ 

3.  -EiNT.  This  ending  (for  -eient),  an  example  of  the  loss 
of  post-tonic  e  (cf.  above,  p.  63),  is  very  usual  in  Anglo- 
Norman  :  esgardeint,  soleint  (Chardri,  Jos.  1158,  Pet.  Plet, 
474),  poreint  {PMerinage,  511).  Examples  abound  in  manu- 
scripts executed  during  and  after  the  thirteenth  century.^ 
In  the  Apocalypse  we  find  -eint  rhyming  with  ceiiit,  forment, 

1  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  323,  §  258.  2  Merwart,  p.  13. 

«  Paris,  p.  xxxiii.  *  p.  417.  ^  ^ttide,  p.  103. 

^  Ihid.  p.  14.  "^  Aiiban,  p.  5. 

8  Cf.  Meyer,  Bozon,  p.  Ixv.  »  Cf.  Meyer,  Rom.  XXV,  255. 


MORPHOLOGY  125 

and  the  like.  Again,  when  the  e  is  not  dropped  we  find 
ensement :  diseient,  252,  forme7it :  cUsoient,  275 ;  or  the  rhyming 
of  preterite  and  imperfect ;  as,  crierent :  disoient,  289,  crierent: 
teneint,  etc.  We  have  already  noted  a  similar  oxytone  accen- 
tuation for  the  -eyit  of  the  present  tense  (cf.  above,  p.  122,  6). 

65.  IMPERFECT   SUBJUNCTIVE. 

Here,  again,  we  have  to  call  attention  to  the  accent  on  the 
last  syllable  (chantassSnt).  The  phenomenon  is  by  no  means 
confined  to  Anglo-Norman,  but  is  very  frequent  there. ^ 
Under  the  influence  of  the  accent  the  -ent  may  become  -ant 
(Soussmit,  Cumpoz  ;  veissant,  Q.  L.  B.),  and  then  -ont  (Dia- 
logues Gregoire,  rendissont,  gardesont,  etc.^). 

66.  FUTURE. 

This  tense,  in  its  various  forms,  illustrates  several  phe- 
nomena of  Old  French  in  general,  as  well  as  of  Anglo- 
Norman.  Some  of  these  may  be  referred  to,  as  follows: 
tr,  dr  >  rr,  crerrat  (Camb.  Psalt.),^  cf.  above,  p.  89 ;  con- 
fusion of  TV  and  r,  dirrai  (Q.  L.  R}),  cf.  above,  p.  89 ;  fall 
of  atonic  e  after  a  vowel,  envei-rai,  cf .  above,  p.  63 ;  fall  of 
same  after  a  consonant,  jurrez,^  cf .  above,  p.  64 ;  insertion  of 
e  between  consonant  and  ?',  fauderai,  cf .  above,  p.  90,  4,  a ; 
pretonic  i  >  e,  vesterai,  manterai)^  confusion  of  -ai  and  -ei, 
servirei  (Alexis,  L,  str.  99),  Camb.  Psalt.  serei,  clianterei,  XC, 
15 ;  GUI,  33 ;  in  this  Psalter  we  notice  a  continuation  of  the 
-ex  in  the  second  person  in  enseigneres,  CXVIII,  171. 

67.  PRETERITE. 

Here  we  note  a  few  isolated  points,  which  we  classify 
under  the  different  types  of  the  preterite. 

1.  -DEDi.  The  Oxf.  Psalt.  offers  some  of  the  rare  exam- 
ples which  we  have  for  the  preservation  of  the  old  -ie: 


1 


Cf.  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  388,  §  307  ;  Stimming,  Boeve,  p.  Ivii. 
2  Cloran,  p.  60.  ^  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  396,  §  314. 

4  Merwart,  p.  9.  ^  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  393,  §  314. 

6  Ibid.  395,  §  314  ;  Schlosser,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  57. 


126         MANUAL   OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

cunfundies  espandies,  espandierent}    We  note  another  case 
in  Vie  St  Edmond,  2524,  espandie  :  lie. 

2.  -s  Preterite.  Here  are  three  noteworthy  points. 
First,  the  influence  of  the  present  on  the  preterite  in  forms 
like  crienst,  repunst,  mainst  (in  the  Psalters)}  Second,  the 
confusion  of  mest  (mansit)  and  mist  (misit)  which  is  pecul- 
iar to  Norman  and  Anglo-Norman  texts.^  Third,  the  exten- 
sion of  weak  forms  of  this  type  (as  desis)  to  regular  weak 
verbs ;  for  example,  garesis  (for  garis),  saisesis  (for  saisis),  etc., 
in  the  Psalters  and  Q.  L.  P.*  In  the  Arundel  Psalt.  we  note 
degiierpisis^  (fesis  occurs  just  before  this),  in  Vie  St.  Gilles, 
guaresis  (3606),  in  Sardenai  (L  and  0),  traisist  (98).  The 
Anglo-Norman  here  furnishes  examples  of  a  phenomenon 
not  rare  in  general  Old  French. 

3.  -ui  Preterite.  Here  we  call  attention  to  the  remark 
of  Paris  ^  in  comparing  the  forms  out  and  ot,  plout  and  p/o^; 
out  and  plout  represent  the  normal  products,  ot  and  pZo^  the 
abridged  (cf.  above,  imperfect  indicative,  p.  123,  1).  These 
perfects,  out,  plout  are  to  be  distinguished  from  those  in  -ut 
(aperceut,  but,  etc.)  which  rhyme  only  with  themselves. 

4.  -ierent  >  -iRENT.  This  change,  in  common  with  a 
similar  one  of  -ie  to  -i  in  infinitives  and  past  participles,  is 
referred  to  in  our  next  section  (67). 

5.  -EUMES  >  -UMES.  On  the  fall  of  the  atonic  -e  here  (cf. 
above,  p.  60,  §  17,  1,  a). 

6.  -RENT.  For  the  oxy tone  here,  cf .  the  remarks  above  on 
the  imperfect,  p.  125,  3. 

68.    PAST   PARTICIPLE. 

We  find  quite  a  number  of  examples  of  the  rhyming  of 
-iee  (usually  first  reduced  to  -ie)  and  -lej  that  is,  to  two 

1  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  348,  §  272. 

2  Ihid.  374,  §  289. 

8  Ibid. ;  Schlosser,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  8. 

«  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  375,  §  289.  ^  Zt.  XI,  521. 

«  Ihid.  IV,  520.  "^  Ome.  de  Berneville,  p.  xxxiv. 


MORPHOLOGY  127 

rhyming  in  -/  {baissie  \fie).      These  are  referred  to  by  Stiin- 
ming.^ 

69.  MISCELLANEOUS,  IRREGULAR  OR  PECULIAR 
FORMS. 

We  here  ax^pend,  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  their  infini- 
tives, some  striking  forms  of  verbs  which  have  been  referred 
to  in  various  places. 

Avoir.  Avant  occurs  for  the  present  participle  in  the 
Psalters,^  as  Camb.  Psalt.  XXXVII,  14,  avanz. 

Comiaitre.  Conissiez,  coneissiez  occur  in  the  Camb.  Psalt. 
and  Q.  L.  E.^  I  note  a  similar  example  of  the  pretonic  i  in 
Vie  St.  Edmond,  of  D.  Pyramus,  alisum  (1660),  menisum 
(1665).  Forms  with  que-  are  seen  in  Vie  St.  Gregoire,  as 
qiienoistras  (1723),  qenu  (1724). 

Creire.  We  find  crei  as  third  singular  preterite  in  Vie 
St.  Gilles,  1.  3611.'' 

Dire.  We  find  disum  in  Cumpoz  and  Bestiaire.^  In  Vie 
St.  Gregoire  we  note  dierrei  (1867). 

Este7'.     We  have  a  present,  estait,  analogical  to  vait  in 
'Cumpoz  and  Brandan,^  and  a  preterite  estout,  analogical  to 
out  in  Camb.  Psalt.,  Q.  L.  R.,  and  Brayidan? 

Etre.  We  encounter  several  interesting  forms  here.  For 
the  infinitive  we  find  in  Vie  St.  Gregoire  istre  (1562).  In 
the  present  tense,  we  note  in  Alexis,  L  (str.  44,  e)  soi;  su 
for  sui  is  of  course  common  in  Anglo-Norman,  consequent 
upon  the  reduction  of  -ui  to  -u  (cf.  above,  p.  80).  For 
the  first  person  plural  we  find  semes  in  Vie  St.  Gregoire 
(2271).  The  rare  esmes  is  said  to  be  found  only  in  Norman 
and  Anglo-Norman  texts.^    Paris  cites  it  for  the   Vie  St. 

1  Boeve,  p.  202.  ^  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  247,  §  183. 

3  Schlosser,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  62. 

4  This  refrence  is  given  (incorrectly)  as  line  3615  in  Bom.  XI,  596. 

5  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  2.32,  §  169. 

6  Ibid.  II,  290,  §224.  "^  Schlosser,  Q.  L.  B.  p.  19. 
8  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  281,  §211. 


128         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Gilles,^  and  says  it  is  almost  unknown  after  the  twelfth 
century.  He  refers  to  Burguy,^  who  cites  several  examples 
of  esmes  (eimes,  ermes).  In  Vie  St.  Gilles,  line  504,  we  find 
the  spelling  aimes.  I  note  also  in  the  Bible  Fragment  (11. 
125  and  634)  two  cases  of  eimes.^  For  the  present  subjunc- 
tive I  note  susums  in  Vie  St.  Edmoncl,  line  948.  For  the 
imperfect  indicative  we  find  an  odd  set  of  forms  in  the  Vie 
St.  Gregoire:  ereit,  eroit,  eroient;  they  are  numerous,  found, 
however,  by  the  side  of  the  regular  ere,  ert.  Meyer  ^  says  he 
has  never  seen  these  forms  elsewhere.  They  are  evident 
creations  on  -ebam  imperfects  (one  never  finds  erot).  We 
note  esteum  in  Chardri,  Jos.  1712.  For  the  future  we  see 
ierc  in  Camb.  Psalt.  CXLV,  1. 

Faire.  For  f aimes  we  refer  to  the  note  by  Paris  on 
esmes,  just  quoted.  He  refers  to  the  examples  previously 
given  by  himself,^  and  adds  one  from  Oxf.  Psalt.  We  note 
an  example  in  the  Vie  St.  Gregoire,  983,  where  the  faimes 
has  the  sense  of  a  subjunctive;  a  few  lines  above,  979, 
occurs  fagons.  For  faisum,  cf.  the  note  on  disiim,  above. 
The  forms  of  the  future,  frai,  etc.,  are  very  frequent  in 
Anglo-Norman  cf.  (above,  p.  61,  §  17,  1,  b),  but  not  confined 
to  our  dialect.® 

Getter.     For  gettre,  cf.  above,  p.  119,  3 ;  for  jutta,  etc.,  cf. 

above,  p.  62,  4?  a. 

Plaire.     For  the  present  subjunctive,  plaise  occurs  already 

in  the  Psalters. 

Pouvoir.  In  Aspremont,  line  63,  we  find  poreir  for  poeir ;  ^ 
this  recalls  the  imperfect  poreint  of  the  PUerinage,  line  511 
(cf .  above  p.  91,  6).  For  the  present  participle  we  find  poant 
in  Oxf.  Psalt.,  but  both  2)oant  and  i^uissant  in  Camb.  Psalt.^ 

1  Qme.  de  Berneville,  p.  xviii. 

2  Grammaire  Langue  (V  Oil,  F,  269-270. 

3  Bom.  XVI,  180  and  201.         *  Ibid.  XII,  201. 

5  Accent  Latin,  P-  71.  «  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  396,  §  314. 

7  Ihid.  234,  §  169.  »  Bom.  XII,  448. 

9  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram.  II,  248,  §  183. 


MORPHOLOGY  129 

Prendre.  Metathesis  is  here  frequent:  pernons,  pernez, 
etc.  (cf.  above,  p.  91,  5,  a).  These  forms  occur  in  Norman 
too.^ 

Savoir.  I  note  soi  for  sais  in  Melanges,  V,  8.^  Examples 
of  siez,  siet  (sapis,  sapit)  are  given  by  Stlirzinger.^  I  add 
three  of  siet  from  Vie  St.  Thomas  (I,  94 ;  II,  2,  16).  No 
satisfactory  explanation  for  these  has  been  given.'' 

Trouver.  I  note  troffe  as  present  subjunctive  in  Sar- 
denai  (0).^ 

1  Meyer-Lubke,  Gram.  II,  257,  §  189  ;  Litblt.  V,  69. 

2  Bom.  IV,  377.  3  Orthographia  Gallica,  p.  39. 
4  Meyer-Ltibke,  Gram.  II,  306,  §  243.  s  j^^m.  XIV,  91. 


TEXT   SELECTIONS 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  make  text  selections  a  feature  of 
my  completed  Manual ;  but  on  account  of  the  peculiar  inter- 
est of  the  Anglo-Norman  dialect,  both  for  students  of  Eng- 
lish and  of  French,  it  has  seemed  desirable  to  add  some 
representative  readings ;  these  will  facilitate  the  use  of  this 
portion  of  the  Manual  for  practical  purposes.  In  many  cases 
I  have  selected  extracts  from  editions  now  difficult  of  access; 
I  have  tried  to  choose  extracts  which  illustrate  phenomena 
described  on  the  pages  preceding  the  present  appendix.  I 
add,  in  the  form  of  foot-notes,  variant  readings  from  the 
manuscripts,  suggestions  of  reviewers,  and  the  like,  so  as  to 
furnish  the  student  with  somewhat  of  a  critical  apparatus 
for  his  reading.  In  the  case  of  poetry,  I  retain  the  original 
numbering  of  the  lines  as  found  in  the  editions  cited. 

PHILIPPE   DE   THAUN:    CUMPOZ^ 

Prologus 

Philipes  de  Thalin 
At  fait  une  raisun 
Pur  pruveires  guarnir 
De  la  lei  maintenir. 
5  A  sun  uncle  I'enveiet, 

Que  amender  la  deiet, 
Se  rien  i  at  mesdit 
En  fait  u  en  escrit, 

1,  rhilippe  CLS;  taim  S.—b,  le  enveit  S.  —  Q,  le  LS ;  deit  S.— 
7,  Se  il  de  rien  ad  m.  S.  —  8,  v  en  f.  v  ^S' ;  ne  en  fait  ne  C. 

1  Edition  Mall,  p.  1. 
130 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  131 

A  Hunfrei  de  Thaiin, 
10  Le  chapelain  Yun 

E  seneschal  le  rei : 
Iqo  vus  di  par  mei. 

Salutatio  ad  Patrem 

Or  oez  sun  sermun 

Cum  le  met  a  raisun. 
15  Icil  Deus  ki  tut  fist 

E  ki  tuz  jurz  veir  dist, 

II  guart  I'anme  de  tei. 

Que  il  n'i  ait  desrei, 

Qu'ele  ne  facet  rien 
20  XJ  tuz  jurz  n'i  ait  bien, 

Ne  li  seit  purluigniee 

La  joie  apareilliee. 

Maistre,  un  livre  voil  faire 

E  mult  m'est  a  cuntraire 
25  Que  tant  me  sui  targiet, 

Que  ne  I'ai  cumenciet; 

Kar  mult  est  necessaire 

Cele  ovre  que  voil  faire ; 

E  mult  plusur  clerc  sunt 
30  Ki  grant  busuin  en  unt, 

Ki  pur  mei  preierunt 

E  m'anme  beneistrunt. 

E  sainz  Augustins  dit 

La  u  fait  sun  escrit, 

9,  unfrei  C,  unfrai  L,  unfraid  V;  taun  S.  — 10,  ydun  LV,  yhim  C, 
yun  S.  — 11,  Le  chapeleiii  S,  lu  CL.  — 12,  dit  LS. — 14,  Cumme  S. 

—  15,  E  cil  O ;  deu  S.  — 17,  le  alme  S.  —  18,  ait  ia  d.  L.  — 19,  face  LS, 
fait  C. — 20,  ni  S,  nen  L,  ne  C.  —  21,  purluine  S.  —  22,  apareille  S. 

—  23,  Mais  un  L.  —  25,  targe  Z,  targiez  S.  —  26,  cummeciez  *9,  acu- 
mencet  C. — 27,  ker  L;  necessarie  CS. — 28,  Cel  CL,  eel  liure  S. — 
29,  plusurs  clers  CS.— SO,  Ke  ^.  —  31,  prierunt  X.  — 33,  saint  CS ; 
augustin  S,  austius  L  ;  le  dit  LS.  —  34,  u  il  f .  CL. 


132         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

35  U  numet  le  librarie 

Ki  mult  est  necessarie 

As  priiveires  giiarnir 

De  la  lei  maintenir : 

Iqo  fut  li  saltiers 
40  E  li  antefiniers, 

Baptisteries,  graels, 

Hymniers  e  li  messels, 

Tropiers  e  leQunier 

E  canes  pur  plaidier 
45  A  eels  ki  le  mal  funt, 

Envers  Deu  se  forfunt, 

E  cumpoz  pur  cunter 

E  pur  bien  esguarder 

Les  termes  e  les  cles 
50  E  les  festes  anuels. 

Par  qo  devum  guarder 

Nostre  lei,  celebrer 

Des  Pasches,  des  Noels 

Les  granz  festes  anuels. 
55  U  par  cest  les  tendrunt, 

U  viaz  i  faldrunt. 

D'iqo  me  plaist  guarnir 

Cels  ki  unt  a  tenir 

Nostre  crestientet 
60  Sulunc  la  Trinitet. 

^o  dit  sainz  Augustins, 

Ki  fut  mult  bons  divins, 

35,  libraire  *S'.  —  36,  Ke  >9.  — 38,  A  la  OZ.  —  41,  Baptisterie  CS; 
grahels  C,  e  graels  LS. — 42,  Li  hyraners  C. — 43,  Tropeir  S ;  le- 
cuners  C,  leconiers,  L.  —  44,  pur  parlers  C,  porparliers  L.  — 46,  Et 
vers  deus  S.  — 47,  ciimpot  C,  compote  Z,  compot  S.  — 49,  clefs  L.  — 
50,  annuels  S.  —  51,  Par  cest  L  ;  deuiins  C.  —  52,  e  (et  S)  eel.  LS. 
—  53,  de  iioels  C.  — 54,  Les]  Des  CLS;  annuels  S.  — 55,  le  tendr.  L  ; 
U  par  cez  latendrunt  C ;  par  ceo  les  tendr.  S.  —  57,  a  guarn.  L.  — 
58,  Ces  O,  Ceals  L,  Icels  S ;  lunt  a  t.  ^.  —  50,  cristientet  (xpist.  L) 
CL.  —  61,  dist  C;  saint  S ;  austins  L. — 62,  bou  S;  devins  CLS. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  133 

A\asimkes  pot  estre 
Que  il  unkes  seit  prestre, 
65  S'il  ne  set  cest  librarie 

Dunt  faz  cest  essemplarie. 

Eeprehexsio  Allegorice  per  Proverbia 

Que  ferat  pasturel 

Ki  nen  at  nul  drapel  ? 

Cum  guarderat  berbiz 
70  Ki  nen  at  nul  pastiz  ? 

E  Deus,  cum  cumbatrat 

Ki  ses  armes  nen  at  ? 

N'avum  fei  ne  creance, 

Ki  doiist  estre  lance 
75  Cuntre  eels  enemis 

Ki  sur  nus  sunt  espris. 

II  pernent  la  citet, 

Le  mur  unt  enfundret, 

Fait  i  unt  grant  baee, 
80  Vunt  i  od  grant  huee. 

^0  est  pur  le  seignur 

Ki  se  siet  en  la  tur, 

Ki  ne  se  pot  defendre 

N'od  els  bataille  prendre. 
85  Cument  pot  hom  leer 

Que  bien  curget  par  mer 

Nef,  ki  seit  desquassee 

E  desuz  enfundree  ? 

64,  il  lacking  S. — 65,  siet  L  ;  libraire  S.  —  66,  dum  faiz  C;  essam- 
plaire  ^S*.  —  67,  frat  S.  —  60,  cument  S.  —  70,  qui  nen  nad  C ;  ki  nad  *S'. 
—  74,  Kb  S;  deust  Z,  dust  6'.  — 75,  c.  noz  ^.  —  77,  prennent  C ;  cite 
CLS.—1S,  effundre  C,  esfundre  L,  enfundre  >S'.  — 79,  Fait  vnt  S, 
Hardi  unt  C ;  baudee  6'.  — 80,  Vunt  lur  huee  ^.  —  81,  par  CL  ;  le 
lacking  *S'.  — 82,  Ki  siet  sus  en  L,  qui  set  en  C.  —  84,  eals  L  ;  batailes 
;S'.  —  85,  pot  lorn  L.  —86,  Ki  L,  qui  C ;  curt  C,  curge  L.  —  87,  Ke  S ; 
esquasse  S.  —  88,  desus  C;  enfundre  S,  esfundree  L. 


134    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Dire  qo  pot  li  prestre : 
90  Senz  cumpot  pot  bien  estre, 

Bien  set  us  de  mustier 

E  ses  festes  nuncier. 

E  jo  li  respundrai 

Par  raisun  e  dirrai : 
95  Horn  set  par  us  chanter 

Cum  esturnels  parler. 

Ne  larrai  nel  vus  die, 

Nen  est  pas  juglerie, 
'  Ne  n'est  Grius  ne  Latins, 

100  N'Hebreus  ne  Angevins, 

Ainz  est  raisun  mustree 

De  la  nostre  cuntree. 

Bien  poent  retenir 

^o  dunt  jos  voil  guarnir, 
105  Se  il  volent  entendre 

E  bone  guarde  prendre. 

Mais  cuit  qu'al quant  dirrunt, 

Ki  puint  de  sens  n'avrunt, 

Qu'en  vain  me  travaillai, 
110  Quant  cest  livre  ordenai ; 

E  jurrunt,  pot  eel  estre, 

Le  vertuus  eel  estre 

Que  unc  ne  soi  rimer 

Ne  raisun  ordener. 

89,  Dirre  coe  pot  1.  p.  C ;  Dirra  (Dirrat  S)  cupet  li  p.  LS. — 
90,  pot  lacking  S.  —  01,  Bien  ws  set  demustrer  *S'. — 92,  Ses  festes 
et  denuncier  S.  —  93,  lui  L.  —  94,  et  mustrai  S.  —  95,  Horn  CL, 
Le  S.  —  96,  Cum  S ;  e  C ;  et  L  ;  asturnel  CS,  estornel  L.  — 97,  lerrai 
L;  nel  S,  ne  OZ.  — 98,  Ne  est  C,  Nest  ^\— 99,  griu  CLS.— 
100,  Ne  liebreu  ne  ang.  L^  Ne  peitevins  ne  ang.  S^  ne  nen  est  ang.  C. 
— 103,  pot  lem  ^S*.  — 104,  Co  dunt  vos  v.  Z,  Coe  dum  ges  v.  C, 
Ceo  dunt  io  v.  S.  — 105,  atendre  S. — 100,  Et  voilent  g.  p.  S. — 
107,  M.  quid  quaiquant  L,  Mais  que  que  alq.  C,  Mais  li  quel  ke  d.  S. 
—  108,  Ke  8,  ni  6^.-111  E]  lacking  in  all. —112  Le  L,  Les  CS', 
uertur  ^S'.  — 113,  rimeier  L, 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  135 


115  Mei  ne  chalt  que  fols  die, 

Jo  ne  m'en  repent  mie ; 
Asez  sunt  malpaiiiers 
Pur  mult  petiz  luiers 
E  humes  pur  blasmer, 

120  Neient  pur  amender. 

Unc  pur  fols  nel  truvai 
Ne  ne  m'i  travaillai ; 
N'unc  ne  fut  asnes  net 
Ki  bien  loast  citet. 


OXFORD  PSALTER 1 

PSALMUS    I 

1.  Beneurez  li  huem  chi  ne  alat  el  conseil  des  feluns,  &  en 
la  veie  des  peccheurs  ne  stout,  &  en  la  cliaere  de  pestilence 
ne  sist 

2.  Mais  en  la  lei  de  nostre  Seignur  la  voluntet  de  lui,  &  en 
la  sue  lei  purpenserat  par  jiirn  e  par  nuit. 

3.  Et  lert  ensement  cume  le  fust  qued  est  plantet  de  juste 
les  deciirs  des  ewes,  chi  dunrat  sun  frut  en  sun  tens 

4.  Et  sa  fiiille  ne  decurrat,  &  tutes  les  coses  que  il  unques 
ferat  seriint  fait  prospres. 

5.  Nient  eissi  li  felun,  nient  eissi ;  mais  ensement  cume 
la  puldre  que  li  venz  getet  de  la  face  de  terre. 

115,  Mei  ne  chat  S,  Mais  ne  chalt  C,  Mais  qui  chalt  L ;  fol  S.  — 
116,  Je  (7,  men  S,  me  CL.  — 117,  Asunt  S ;  mas  parlers  C. — 
118,  E  purl,;  mult  lacking  C ;  petit  S;  luers  CLS.  — 120,  Naient 
U,  Nient  S,  E  nient  L.  —121,  Vnkes  p.  fol  /S'.  — 122,  mi  CL,  men 
S.  — 123,  Ne  ne  fut  S ;  asne  CLS;  ne  LS.  — 124,  cite  LJS. 

Variants  (given  by  Michel) 

Cod.  Cott.  1.  Beonure.  harun.  cunseil.  et.  pecheurs.  et.  2.  Seignor 
la  volunted,  e.  Deest  de  lui.     3.  E.  ki.  froit.  son.    4.  E.  e.  ferad. 

1  Edition  Michel,  pp.  1  and  212.  The  accent  marks  in  the  first 
psalm  I  take  from  the  copy  in  Bartsch,  Chrestomathie,  7th  ed.,  col.  53. 


136         MANUAL   OF  OLD  FRENCH  DL\LECTS 

6.  Empurice  ne  resurdent  li  felun  en  juise,  ne  li  peclieur 
el  conseil  des  dreitiu'iers. 

7.  Kar  nostre  Sire  cunuist  la  veie  des  jiistes,  e  le  eire  des 
feluns  perirat. 


PSALMUS    CXXXVI 

1.  Sur  les  flums  de  Babilone,  ilnec  seimes  e  plorames, 
dementres  que  nus  recordiums  de  Syon. 

2.  Es  salz  els  milliu  de  li,  suspendimes  noz  organes. 

3.  Kar  iluec  demaiiderent  nus,  chi  chaitis  menerent  nus, 
paroles  de  canz ; 

4.  E  chi  menerent  nus :  Loenge  cantez  a  nus,  des  canz  de 

Syon. 

5.  Cument  canterum-nus  le  cant  del  Segnor  en  estrange 

terre  ? 

6.  Si  je  oblierai  tei,  Jerusalem,  a  obliance  seit  dunee  la 

meie  destre. 

7.  Aerde  la  meie  langue  as  meies  jodes,  si  mei  ne  remem- 

berra  de  tei ; 

8.  Si  je  ne  proposerai  Jerusalem  el  cumencement  de  la 

meie  ledece. 

9.  Eemembrere  seies,  Sire,  des  filz  Edom,  el  jur  de  Jeru- 
salem ; 

10.  Chi    dient:    Voidez,    voidez,    desque    al    fundament 

en  li. 

Variants 

Cod.  Cott.—Q.  Empurigo  ne  surdent.  peclieor.    7.  I'eire. 

Cod.  Cott.  1.  Babylouie.  3.  caitis.  chanz.  4.  E  chi  ki.  7.  re- 
membera.      8.  al.  leece.      10.   fundement. 

Psalt.  Corb.  1.  Babylonie,  iloec.  recordiuns.  2.  de  millui  de  lui. 
3.  ki  caitifs  m.  voz  p.  4.  E  ki  en  veie  menerent  nus  :  L.  c.  ^  n.,  de  c. 
de  S.  5.  C.  c.-n.  del  Seignur.  Desunt  le  cant.  G.  Se  jo.  e  ^  o. 
don6e.  7.  Aerdet.  k  mes  joes,  se  m.  ne  remembeiat.  8.  So  jo  ne 
purposerai.    comencement.  leece.      10.    Ki  d.  :    Voidient,   v.,   d.   el. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  137 

11.  Fille  de  Babilone  caitive ;  beneurez  clii  redunrad 
a  tei  la  tue  giieredunauce,  laquele  tu  regueredunas  a 
iius, 

12.  Beneurez  chi  tendra,  e  esgenera  les  tues^  enfanz  a  la 
pierre. 

CAMBRIDGE  PSALTERS 

PSALMUS    I 

1.  Beoneiiret  li  heom  ki  ne  alat  el  cunseil  de  felims,  e  eu 
la  veie  des  pecheurs  ne  stout,  e  en  la  chaere  des  escharuisetirs 
ne  sist. 

2.  Mais  en  la  lei  del  Seignur  la  volentet  de  lui,  e  en  la  lei 
de  lui  penserat  par  jur  e  par  nuit. 

3.  E  iert  ensement  cume  fust  tresplantet  dejuste  les 
ruisals  des  ewes,  lequel  sun  fruit  durrat  en  sun  tens. 

4.  E  la  foille  de  lui  ne  decurrat,  e  tuit  ceo  que  il  ferat 
serat  feit  prospre. 

5.  Nien  issi  felun,  mais  ensement  cume  puldre,  lequel 
degetet  li  venz. 

6.  Pur  ceo  ne  resurdrunt  li  felun  el  ju'ise,  ne  li  peclieiir 
en  la  asemblee  des  justes. 

7.  Kar  cuneut  li  Sires  la  veie  des  justes,  e  I'eire  des 
feluns  perirat. 

Variants 

Cod.  Cott.  11.  Babylonie.  redunrat.  reguerredunas.  12.  esge- 
rera.  tueiis. 

Psalt.  Corh.  11.  Babilonie.  ki  reguerdonerat.  guerredonance. 
guerdunas.       12.    ki  tendrat,  e  esgenerat  1.  suens  emfanz. 

Variants  (given  by  Michel) 

1.  conseil.  de.  2.  Meis.  Seinur  la  voluntet.  4.  serrat  fait. 
5.  Nient.  meis.      6.  assemblde. 

1  Meister  collation  :  tuens. 

2  Edition  Michel,  pp.  1  and  244. 


138  MANUAL   OF   OLD   FRENCH   DIALECTS 

PSALMUS    CXXXVI 

1.  Sur  les  fluez  de  Babiloine,  iluec  sesimes  e  ploiarames, 
cum  nus  recordissiims  de  Sion. 

2.  Sur  les  salz  eu  miliu  de  li,  suspendimes  noz  estrumenz. 

3.  Ker  iluec  nuns  demandowent  ki  cliaitifs  nuns  niener- 
ent,  paroles  de  chauQun ;  e  cil  ki  nuns  tormentowent :  Lie, 
chautez  a  nuns  des  chanz  de  Sion. 

4.  Cumment  chanterums  la  cantike  Damne-Deu,  en  aliiene 
terre  ? 

5.  Se  jeo  serai  oubliez  de  tei,  Jerussalem,  en  oubliance 
seit  ma  destre. 

6.  La  meie  langue  alierged  a  mun  guitrun,  se  jeo  ne 
me  recorderai  de  tei,  se  jeo  devant  ne  metrai  Jerussalem  en 
r  comencement  de  ma  leece. 

7.  Remembre  te,  Sire,  des  filz  Edom  el  jurn  de  Jerussalem, 
des  disanz:  Esfowed,  esfowed  juske  al  fundement  de  li. 

8.  La  fille  Babiloine  deguastee ;  bonelired  ki  guerdunerad 
a  tei  la  twe  feiede,  ke  tu  guerdunas  a  nuns. 

9.  Bunewred  ki  tendrad,  e  aburterad  ses  petiz  enfanz  a  la 
pierre. 

QUATRE   LIVBES   DES   ROIS^ 

Ll    QUARZ    LiVRES    DES    ReIS 
.XXV. 

Al  nuefme  an  lu  rei  Sedechie,  el  disme  meis,  el  disme  jur 
del  meis,  vint  Nabugodonosor  li  reis  de  Babilonie  a  tute  se 
ost  a  Jerusalem,  si  1'  asejad  e  ses  engins  i  levad. 

Mais  cil  dedenz  tindrent  la  cited  jesque  al  unzime  an  lu 
rei  Sedechie,  le  nofiue  jur  del  meis. 

Lores  i  fud  la  famine  tant  grande  que  tenir  ne  porent  la 
cited,2 

1  Edition  Le  Roux,  p.  434. 

2  What  Ollericb  calls  "  Moderne  Hand  "  here  substitutes  cit'ed. 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  139 

Si  s'enfuirent^  nuitantre  cez  ki  dedenz  erent,  e  cil  de 
Chaldee  f urent  ^  a  siege,  e  li  reis  Sedechias  s'enf uid  ^  par  la 
cliampaine  del  desert, 

E  li  oz  de  Chaldee  le  sout,  si  V  pursewid,  e  prist  e  retint  es 
plaine  *  de  Jericho,  e  tuz  ses  hummes  s'enf  uirent,* 

Si  r  guerpirent  en  champ,  e  cil  menerent  lu  rei  Sedechie 
devant  le  rei  de  Babilonie  a  Antioche ;  ^  e  li  reis  de  Babi- 
lonie 

Fist  devant  li  ^  meime  ses  fiz  ocire,  e  ses  oilz  crever,  e  de 
chaene  ®  le  fist  lier  e  en  Babilonie  mener. 

El  quint  meis  e  el  setme  jur  del  meis,  co  fud  li  dise-nofme 
an^  del  regne  lu  rei  de  Babilonie  que  Nabuzardan  li  cunesta- 
ble  ^^  de  la  chevalerie  de  Babilonie  vint  a  Jerusalem ; 

E  tuchad  le  f u  e  arst  lu  temple  nostre  Seignur,  e  le  palais 
lu  rei,  e  tute  la  cited ; " 

E  fist  les  murs  de  tutes  parz  agraventer, 

E  les  remasilles  del  pople  ki  furent  la  remes,  e  ki  fuid 
s'en  furent  al  rei  de  Babilonie,  e  les  altres  qu'il  truvad  tuz 
menad  en  chaitivier  en  Babilonie ; 

Mais  del  poverin  de  la  terre  i  laissad  partie  que  il  s'entre- 
meissent  de  la  guaignerie. 

Lores  prist  les  riches  columpnes  de  araim  ki  al  temple 
furent  od  tutes  les  basses  ^^  e  lu  vaissele  '^  ki  fud  el  temple, 
de  argent  e  de  araim ;  e  tant  i  out  que  I'um  "  ne  sout  lu  peis. 

E  Nabuzardan  prist  les  pruveires  e  les  tresoriers  del  tem- 
ple, e  un  des  cunestables  e  des  privez  lu  rei^  e  altres  une 
masse,  si's  enveiad  en  Antioche  al  rei. 

E  la  les  fist  ocire  li  reis,  e  jetad  cez  de  Juda  hors  de  lur 
pais. 

1  Ollerich's  collation  :  s'en  fuirent.  ^  oilericli :  i  furent. 

3  Ollerich :  s'en  fuid.  4  oUerich  :  plaines. 

5  Ollerich :  s'en  fuirent.  ^  Modern  hand  :  antiochie. 

7  Modern  hand :  lui.  8  Ollerich :  chaenes. 

9  Ollerich  :  ans.  i*^  Ollerich :  cunestables. 

11  What  Ollerich  calls  "  Zweite  Hand"  here  substitutes  cit'ed. 

12  Zweite  hand  :  basses.  i^  Ollerich :  vaissel.  i*  Ollerich :  lii. 


140         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Si  fist  Godolie  le  fiz  Aica  le  fiz  Sapha  maistre  sur  tant  de 
frapin  cume  en  la  terre  remest. 

Cume  li  paisant  surent  que  li  reis  Nabugodonosor  out  fait 
Godolie  maistre  de  la  terre,  Ismael  le  fiz  Natanie,  e  Johan- 
nan  li  fiz  Caree,  e  Saraia  li  fiz  Thenamech,  e  Jeclionias  li  fiz 
Machati,  e  lur  cumpaignuns  vindrent  a  lui  en  Masphath. 

E  Godolias  lur  fist  serement  que  mal  ne  lur  freit,  si  lur 
dist :  Mar  averez  pour  de  servir  a  cez  de  Caldee ;  en  ceste 
terre  remanez,  e  le  rei  de  Babilonie  servez,  e  bien  vu3 
esterrad.  .  .  . 

BE ANDAN  ^ 

Donna  aaliz  la  ""erne 

Par  q'  ualdrat  lei  divine 

Par  q'  creistrat  lei  de  terre 

E  remandrat  tante  guerre 
6  Por  les  armes  henri  lurei 

E  par  le  cunseil  q'  ert  entei 

Saluet  tei  mil  emil  f  eix^ 

Li  apostoiles  danz  benediz. 

Que  comandas  66  ad  enp's 
10  Secund  sun  sens  entre  Mis 

En  let^  Mis  &  en  romanz 

Esi  cu  fud  li  teons  cumanz 

De  saint  Brendan  le  bon  abeth 

Mais  tul  defent  ne  seit  gabeth. 
16  Q'^nt  dit  q''  set  e  fait  q"*  peot 

Jtel  seruant  blasmer  ne  steot 

Mais  si  q'  peot  ene  uoile 

Variants  (from  Oxford  Ms.  given  by  Suchier) 
1,  Donna  aaliz]  De  ma  halt.  —  2,  ualdra.  —  4,  remei/idm.  —  5,  Par. 
le.  _6,  conseil.  de  tei. —7,   Salue.  —  8,  li  apostolies  donz  beneiz. 

—  9,  commandas.  —  10,  Si  cum.  en  \etre. — 11,  remans.  — 12,  issi.  fut 
(usually  found),  tuens.  — 13,  brandan.  abet.  — 14,  tu  le defende.  gabet. 

—  15,  poet,  — 16,  seriant.  stuet.  — 17,  cil.  puet.  uoiliet. 

1  Edition  Suchier,  Bomanische  Studies,  I,  667. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  141 

Dreiz  est  q^  cil  mult  se  doile 

Jcist  semz  deu  fud  nee?  de  reis 
20  De  naisance  fud  des  ireis 

Pur  66  q®  fud  de  regal  Im 

Pur  oc  en  tent  a  noble  fm 

Ben  sout  q^  lesc'pture  dit 

Ki  de  cest  mund  fuit  de  delit 
25  Oc^  deu  de  eel  tant  en  aurat 

Que  pP  demander  ne  saurat 

Pur  oc  guerpit  cist  reials  eirs 

Les  fals  honurs  p^  iceals  ueirs 

Dras  des  Moine  pur  estre  vil. 
30  En  cest  secle  cti  en  eisil 

Prist  elordre  eles  liabiz 

Pu's  fud  abes  par  force  esliz 

Par  art  de  liu  mult  iuincZrent 

Qui  ale  ordre  bein  se  tmdrent 
35  Tres  Mil  suz  lui  par  diuers  leus 

Munies  aueit  b'^ndan  li  pius. 

De  lui  pnanz  tuz  ensample 

Par  sa  vertud  q^  ert  ample 

Li  abes  brendan  p'st  enp«pens 
40  Cu  home  q'  ert  de  Mult  g*nt  sens 

De  g^nz  cunseilz  e  de  rustes 

Cti  cil  q'  ert  forint  iustes 

De  deu  p^er  ne  fereit  fin 

Pur  sei  ep?  trestut  sun  lin. 
45  E  p^  les  morz  ep^  les  uifs 

Variants  (from  Oxford  Ms.  given  by  Suchier) 

18,  mult  se  doile]  puis  sen  duillet.  — 19,  fu  neiz. — 20,  naissa?ice 
fu  de. — 21,  ceo  (usually  so  written),  fu.  reial. — 22,  Pur  oc]  de 
mielz.  —  23  [B]ien.  la  scj'iptwe.  —  24,  fuiet  le. — 25,  ciel.  aura. — 
26,  demander  plus,  saura.  —  27,  cist  (lacking).  —  28,  le.  onurs.  ices.  — 
29,  m[u]inie.  —  30,  icest  siecle. — 31,  abiz. — 32,  fu  abez.  —  34,  ki 
(usual)  alordre  blew.  —  36,  brandaws.  —  37,  tons.  —  38,  anple.  — 
39,  brandans.  — 41,  cowseilz.— 43,  feseit.  — 45,  [mor]s. 


142    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Quer  astrestuz  ert  amis 
Mais  de  une  en  li  p*st  talent 
Dimt  deu  p^er  p'nt  pP  suiient 
Que  lui  mustrat  eel  parais 
50  V  adam  fud  p'mes  asis 

Jcel  q'  est  nost^  heritet 
Dun  nus  fumes  deseritet 
Bien  creit  q'  leoc  ad  g*nt  glorie 
Si  cu  nus  dit  ueire  storie 
55  Mais  nepHant  uoldret  uetheir 

V  il  deureit  par  dreit  setheir 
Mais  par  peccet  ada  forest 
P^  quei  z  sei  nus  fors  mist 
Den  en  p'et  tenablement 
60  Cel  lui  mustret  ueablement 

Amz  q'l  murget  noldreit  uetlieir 
Quel  sed  li  bon  deurunt  aueir 
Quel  lu  le'  mal  aueir  deurunt 
Quel  merite  il  receurunt 
65  Enfern  pried  uetlieir  oueoc 

E  quels  pein^s  auruiit  ileoc 
Jcil  felun  q'  ];)ar  orguil 
Jci  prennent  par  eols  escuil. 
De  gurrer  deu  e  la  lei 
70  Ne  ent^  eols  nen  unt  aiiiur  ne  fai 

Jed  dunt  lui  p's  est  desir 
Voldrat  Brandans  par*^^"  sentir 
OcZ  sei  phnes  cmiseilz  en  p^nt 
Qua  un  deu  serf  9fesse  rent 
75  Barinz  out  nun  cil  ermite 

Murs  aut  bons  esamt  uitte 
Li  fedeilz  deu  en  bois  estout 
Tres  cenz  moiiies  od  lui  out 
Variants  (from  Oxford  Ms.  given  by  Suchier) 
56,     [s]eier.  — 60,    [u]isablemcnt.  — 62,    deuront.  —  66,    iluec. — 
68,  e[scu]el.  —  70,  fei.  —  76,  sai?ite  uie.  — 78,  aueit. 


80 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  143 

De  lei  p^ndrat  conseil  elos 
De  lui  uoldrat  aueir  ados 
Cil  li  mustrat  par  plusurs  diz 
Beals  ensaples  ebons  espiz 
Quil  il  uit  en  mer  z  enterre 
Q'^nt  son  filiol  alat  querre 
85  Co  iml  m'noc  q^  fud  frerre 

Del  lui  V  cist  abes  ere. 

GAIM  AE 1 

Quinte  iur  apres  reis  Harold  vint; 
Contre  Norreis  bataille  tint. 
5225  Co  fu  Harald  fiz  Godewine, 

Ki  des  Norheis  fit  discipline. 
Co  fut  al  Punt  de  la  Bataille : 
Norreis  trouat,  pernant  almaille. 
Li  reis  Harold  done  les  sewi, 
5230  Ireement  se  combati. 

Laltre  Harald  el  champ  oscist, 

E  de  Tosti  ensement  fist. 

Sur  les  Daneis  out  la  victorie, 

La  gent  del  Suth  sembla  grant  gloria. 
5235  Mais  bom  ne  sout  conter  demis 

Cels  kel  champ  furent  oscis. 

Totes  les  nefs,  e  Iur  herneis, 

Ad  feit  saisir  Harald  li  reis. 

Variants  (from  Oxford  Ms.  given  by  Suchier) 
81,  S[il].— 82,  respiz. 

Variants 
5228,  Quart  II;  Haralt  A  Harald  J/L.  -  5225,  le  fiz  DL.-- 
5227,  le  (for  al).-5228,  aumaille  ^.-5221),  siwit  D  siwi  L,  suit 
H;  done  omitted,  H.-5230,  Irousement  ^- "  ^^l^^'  ^'\^°^'  i" ' 
Norois  II  -5234,  de  Sud  L;  gloire  2>.-523o,  demi  if.-52o6,  Ce. 
A  Qui  H;  pais  LII  -5237,  Iur  (for  les)  H.  -  5238,  Ad  omitted  M. 
1  Edition  Hardy  and  Martin,  I,  221. 


144         MANUAL   OF  OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Le  fiz  eel  rei  i  fust  troue : 
5240  Cil  fust  a  Harald  amene. 

Merci  cria,  treu  pramist ; 

Haralde  homage  de  li  prist. 

E  de  trestuz  les  remananz, 

Prist  bons  ostages,  e  vaillanz ; 
5245  Od  vint  nefs  les  les  sat  aler : 

Done  airent  tant  ke  sunt  en  mer. 
Cine  iors  apres  sunt  ariuez 

Franceis,  od  bien  vnze  mil  nefs, 

A  Hastinges,  desur  la  mer : 
5250  Hoc  firent  chastel  fermer. 

Li  reis  Harald  quant  il  oi, 

Leuesque  Aldret  ad  done  saisi 

Del  grant  auer  e  del  herneis 

Kil  out  eonquis  sur  les  Norreis. 
5255  Merleswain  done  i  lessat ; 

Pur  ost  mander  en  Suth  alad. 

Cine  iurs  i  mist  al  asembler, 

Mais  ne  pout  gueres  avner, 

Pur  la  grant  gent  ki  ert  oscise, 
5260  Quant  des  Norreis  fist  Deus  justise. 

Tresken  Suthsexe  Harald  alat, 

Tel  gent  cum  pout  od  li  menat. 

Ses  dous  f reres  gent  asemblerent ; 

A  la  bataille  od  lui  alerent, 
5265  Li  uns  fust  Gerd,  laltre  Leswine, 

Variants 
5239,  celui  DH  (for  eel  rei).  — 5239  and  5240  omitted  L  — 
5240,  Cel  A  Si,  ^.  —  5241,  triu  i7.— 5243,  tuz  if.— 5244,  bons 
omitted  H.  —  5246,  font  H  (for  airent). — 5248,  bien  omitted  H \ 
IX  H  (for  unze)  ;  miliers  L  (for  mil  nefs).  — 5251,  co  old  Z),  co  oi 
L,  ceo  oit  H  (for  il  oi).  — 5252,  Aired  DLH\  i  H  (for  ad).— 
5253,  de  i).  —  5254,  des  H  (for  sur  les).  — 5255,  idunc  DH. — 
525G,  el  jy.  —  5259,  quot  D  (for  ki  ert).— 5201,  Sudreie  L. — 
5262,  Tant  D,  Tels  L,  Tieus  H  (for  Tel  gent)  ;  cum  sei  D  ;  od  sei 
Z.  — 5263,  Les;  genz  i).  —  5265,  Gered  i,  Gerard  If;  Lefwine  D.— 


TEXT   SELECTION^  145 

Contre  la  gent  de  vltre  marine. 
Quant  les  escheles  sunt  rengees, 

E  del  ferir  aparillees, 

Mult  i  out  genz  dambesdous  parz ; 
5270  De  hardement  semblent  leoparz. 

Vn  des  Franceis  done  se  hasta, 

Deuant  les  altres  cheualcha. 

Taillefer  ert  oil  apelez, 

loglere  estait,  hardi  asez. 
6275  Armes  aueit  e  bon  cheual : 

Si  ert  hardiz  e  noble  vassal. 

Deuant  les  altres  oil  se  mist ; 

Deuant  Engleis  merueilles  fist. 

Sa  lance  prist  par  le  tuet, 
5280  Com  si  CO  fust  vn  bastunet : 

'  Encontre  mont  halt  le  geta, 

E  par  le  fer  receue  la. 

Trais  fez  issi  geta  sa  lance ; 

La  quarte  feiz,  mult  pres  sauance, 
5285  Entre  les  Engleis  la  lanca, 

Par  mi  le  cors  vn  en  naffra. 

Puis  treist  sespee,  arere  vint, 

Geta  sespee,  kil  tint, 

Encontre  mont  puis  la  receit. 
5290  Lun  dit  al  altre,  ki  co  veit, 

Ke  CO  estait  enchantement 

Variants 

5266,  lost  H  (for  la  gent).  —  5267,  eschieles  D  ;  furent  LH;  rengies 
D.  —  5269,  dambes  DH,  damp  L.  —  5270,  leuparz  BL.  —  5273,  Tail- 
lifer  D,  Talifer  //.  —  5274,  luglere  I)LH\  ert  BL,  omitted  H\  ardiz 
D,  hardiz  i.  — 5276,  bon  L  (for  noble). —5277,  cil  omitted  H.— 
5279,  diet  B,  cued  i.  —  5280,  Si  cum  B,  Si  come  //;  hastuned 
Z.  — 5281,  lengetta  jET.  — 5282,  sa  (for  la).— 5284,  mult  omitted^; 
par  X,  puis  H  (for  pres).— 5285,  la  omitted  i.  — 5286,  naurat  Z>, 
nauera  H.—5281,  5288,  lespee  BH.—62S8,  Et  geta  //.  —  5289,  halt 
BL,  haut  H  (for  puis) ;  le  (for  la)  BH. 

L 


146  MANUAL  OF  OLD  FKENCH  DIALECTS 

Ke  cil  fesait,  deuant  la  gent. 
Quant  treis  faiz  out  gete  lespee, 

Le  cheual,  od  gule  baiee, 
5295  Vers  les  Engieis  vint  a  esleise, 

Si  i  ad  alquanz  ki  quident  estre  mange, 

Pur  le  cheual  ki  issi  baiout, 

Le  iugleor  apris  li  out. 

Del  espee  fiert  vn  Engieis ; 
5300  Le  poing  li  fait  voler  maneis. 

Altre  en  fiert  tant  cum  il  pout : 
'       Mai  guerdon  le  ior  en  out. 

Car  les  Engieis,  de  totes  parz, 

Li  lancent  gauelocs  e  darz. 
5305  Lui  oscistrent,  e  son  destrer : 

Mar  demanda  le  colp  primer. 

Apres  i  co  Franceis  requerent, 

E  les  Engieis  en  contre  fierent. 

La  out  asez  leue  grant  cri : 
5310  Desci  kal  vespre  ne  failli, 

Ne  le  ferir,  ne  le  lancer : 

]\Iult  i  aut  mort  maint  cheualer ; 

Nes  sai  nomer,  nos  mentir, 

Lesquels  alerent  mielz  ferir. 

Variants 

5292,  Cil  se  fiert  H  (for  Ke  cil  fesait).  — 5294,  ad  la  DLH  (for 
od). — 5295,  a  omitted  DLH ]  eslessie  Z>,  eslesse  H.  —  5296,  Alquant 
Z>,  Alquanz  Z,  Auquanz  H  (for  Si  .  .  .  ki). — 5297,  si  DL.— 
5298,  enpres  venout  H.  —  5299,  espie  B.  —  5300,  piiin  i>,  poin 
i,  poign  //;  des  mains  L  (for  maneis),  demanois  H.  —  5301,  Vn 
altre  H.  —  5304,  launcerent.  —  5305,  Si  1  H.  —  5306,  cop  DL,  coup 
H.  — 5307,  requierent  DL,  les  requierent  //.  —  5309,  Assez  i  out  H.  — 
5313,  Ne  D\  ne  ruis  DH,  rois  L  (for  nos).  — 5314,  Li  Englois 
alerent  bien  ferir  H. 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  147 


ADGAE, 


Vns  moines  ert  Eueshamneis, 

Ki  mut  ama  Deu  e  ses  leis. 

La  mere  Deu  reserui  bien 

E  honiira  sur  tute  rien. 
5  Ne  laissa  rien  en  nule  guise, 

Qu'apartenist  a  son  seruise. 

Puis  quant  cil  bers  deueit  murir, 

A  sei  uit  mut  diables  uenir. 

Cuiluert  erent  e  mult  engres ; 
10  Deuant  sei  les  uit  ester  pres. 

Mais  quant  ewe  beneite  esteit 

Getee,  cum  I'en  faire  deit, 

S'en  fuirent  tuit  li  felun 

De  tutes  parz  de  la  meisun. 
15  E  puis  tut  dreit,  cum  dut  murir, 

La  Dame  uit  a  sei  uenir ; 

La  cliere  mere  al  Salueur 

Dist  li :  "  Ami,  ne  aies  pour ! 

Ensemble  od  mei  t'alme  merrai ; 
20  En  ioie,  en  repos  la  metrai !  '^ 

Cil  la  prist  dune  a  saluer 

E  icest  respuns  a  chanter : 

"  Gaude,  Maria ;  virgo  chere  ! " 

E  rendi  I'alme  en  ioie  entiere. 
25  Cum  li  respuns  esteit  pardit, 

El  ciel  tramist  son  esperit. 

Bien  deiuent  Crestien  trestuit 

Seruir  la  Dame  e  ior  e  nuit, 

Asaier,^  cumfaitement 
30  Peussent  faire  sun  duz  talent ; 

Ne  mie  sulement  li  grant, 

1  Edition  Neuhaus,  p.  151. 

2  Foerster  (corrections  added  to  the  edition,  p.  251)  suggests :  E 
asaier  as  a  probability. 


148         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Mais  fol  e  sage  e  nunsauant. 
A  tuz  rent  bien  sulimc  merite ; 
Plusurs  defent  de  mort  subite. 

35  E  se  il  en  muerent  de  tele  mort, 

As  almes  rent  ele  grant  cumfort, 
Cum  ele  fist  a  I'alme  de  un  moine, 
Ki  ert  d'un  mostier  de  Burgoine.  — 
Den  nus  duinst  des  pechez  pardun 

40  Par  fei  e  par  comfessiun. 

FANTOSME  i 

Li  sires  d'Engleterre  ad  en  sun  cuer  pesance 

Quant  sun  fiz  le  guerreie,  qu'il  nurri  ad  d'enfance, 
80      E  veit  que  cil  de  Flandres  I'unt  mis  en  errance. 

Pramis  li  unt  la  terre  des  Engleis  a  fiance ; 

Mielz  volsist  mort  que  vie  qu'il  eiist  la  puissance, 

Tant  cum  il  pout  d'espee  ferir  u  de  lance. 

Establist  sun  barnage  par  fiere  cuntenance, 
85     Vait  encuntre  Lowis,  le  riclie  rei  de  France, 

Cuntre  le  cunte  Plielippun,  dunt  vus  oiez  parlance, 

E  dan  Maheu  sun  frere,  chevalier  de  vaillance. 

Mult  aida  Deu  le  pere  le  jor,  quant  il  I'avance, 

E  mustra  de  sa  guerre  bele  signifiance ; 
90     Que  le  sucurs  de  sun  fiz,  u  plus  fud  s'esperance, 

Fud  le  jor  agravente  senz  nule  demurance. 

^o  fud  Maheu  le  puigneur,  sur  qui  vint  la  lance ; 

N'aurad  mes  li  reis  Henriz  pur  lui  nule  dutance. 
Li  cuens  de  Buluine  ad  receu  mortel  plaie, 
95     De  si  qu'as  espuruns  a  or  li  sane  vermeilz  li  raie. 

Ne  purrad  james  guarir,  asez  ad  qu'il  asaie. 

Tant  est  sis  freres  plus  dolent,  e  plus  suvent  s'esmaie, 

Variants 

78,  quor  pensance  L. — 80,  81  omitted  in  L.  —  83,  peust,  de  sa 
lance  L.  —  87,  En  i.  —  90,  ot  sa  fiance  L.  —  92,  Ceo  fu  i.  —  96,  ad 
assez  L. 

1  Edition  Hewlett,  p.  208. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  149 

E  jure  sun  serrement,  "  La  pretiuse  plaie," 
James  vers  le  rei  Henri  n'aurad  nule  appaie. 

100        Ore  chevalche  Lowis,  si  fait  le  jofne  rei, 

E  Phelippe  de  Flandres  est  mis  en  grant  desrei. 
Li  cuens  Tiebaut  de  France  demeine  grant  podnei. 
Ja  saverad  li  reis  Henri  asez  u  mover  sei. 
Franceis  li  muevent  guerre,  Flameng  et  Cupei, 

105    Li  cuens  de  Leircestre,  si  i  sunt  ses  fiz  tut  trei. 
Icil  de  Tankarvile  ne  I'aime  pas  de  f ei ; 
Cent  chevaliers  a  armes  ameine  en  sun  cunrei, 
Ki  tuit  lui  sul  manacent  de  mettre  en  tel  desrei 
Ne  li  larrunt  de  terre  le  pris  d'un  palefrei. 

110        Seignurs,  en  la  meie  fei,  merveille  est  mult  grant. 
Pur  quel  li  suen  demeine  le  vunt  si  demenant, 
Le  plus  honurable  e  le  plus  cunquerant 
Que  fust  en  nule  terre  puis  le  tens  Moysant, 
Fors  sulement  li  reis  Charle,  ki  poeste  fud  grant 

115    Par  les  dudze  cumpaignuns,  Olivier,  e  Rodlant. 
Si  ne  fud  mes  oi  en  fable  ne  en  geste 
Un  sul  rei  de  sa  valur  ne  de  sa  grant  poeste. 
Purquant  lui  vunt  tuz  maneqant,  il  en  jure  sa  teste 
Ne  larrad  pur  riveier  ne  pur  chacier  sa  beste. 

120        Or  chevalche  li  cuens  Phelipe  ovoc  sa  grant  cumpaigne, 
E  guaste  Normendie  par  bois  e  par  champaigne. 
N'en  oissiez  le  rei  Henri  qu'il  une  feiz  s'en  plaigne, 
Ne  querre  nul  achaisun  que  la  guerre  remaigne. 
Mult  ad  li  juesne  reis  espleitie,  qui  si  bien  se  baigne 

125    Encore  en  ad  les  mandemenz  des  baruns  de  Bretaine. 

99,  n'avera  nul  apaie  X.  — 100,  reis  i^.  — 101,  de  Flandres  X, 
omitted  D.  —  102,  Tebaud  —  pothnei  L.  — 105,  Leecestre,  si  sunt  L. 
— 106,  Tankervile.  — 107,  en  meine  a  sun  cunrei.  — 110,  mei,  en  est 
L.  —  111,  mana9ant  L.  — 112,  e  phis  cumquerant  L.  —  115,  Oliver  e 
Rolant  X.  — 116,  Ce  ne  fud  (by  erasure)  L.  —118,  li  vunt  managant 
si  en  jure  L. — 120,  od  sa  grant  cumpainie  L. — 121,  campaignie 
L.  — 122,  que  une  feiz  se  plaine  L.  —  123,  remaignie  L.  — 125, 
Vncore  L. 


150    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

ANGIER   (Vie  de  Saint  Grecjoirey 

Icist  Eleuthere  par  nom 
Un  inort  jadis  resuscita, 

324  E  por  itaiit  In  amena 

A  cele  houre,  ovec  sei,  Gregoire 
Priveement  eu  I'oratoire; 
Si  I'en  requist,  por  De  amor, 

328  Q'orast  por  lui  Deu,  q'icel  jor 

Veaus  noil  trespasser  lu  donast 
Q'od  les  enfanz  lu  jelinast ; 
Mais  ne  demoura  fors  brefment 

332  Pues  q'is  orent  ens  emblement 

Amdui,  tant  com  lor  plot,  ore, 
Quant  Gregoires  li  ami  De 
Tant  fort  e  legier  sei  sentit 

336  Qe  s'il  vousist  sanz  nul  respit 

Jeliner  jesq'a  I'endemain, 
Tant  sei  sentit  vigrous  e  sein, 
Bien  lu  pot  faire  sanz  nul  gref 

340  Del  mal  del  ventre  ne  del  chief, 

Si  q'il  soi  merveilla  de  sei 
Comment  qo  pot  estre  e  par  qei 
Q'il  ne  mangot  com  il  sent  faire. 

344  Ne  voeil  d'iqo  plus  avant  traire, 

Car  il  meisme  asez  reconte 
A  quel  cele  aventure  amonte 
Enz  el  tierz  livre  renome 

348  Del  Dialoge  translate, 

La  ou  par  sa  raison  escleire 
Les  vertuz  del  dit  Eleutlieire. 
^0  poet  asez  cliasqun  voier, 

352  Per  q'il  voilge  tant  travaillier 

Q'iloec  en  dreit  lu  deinge  querre. 

1  Edition  P.  Meyer,  Bom.  XII,  156. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  151 

Mais  iceste  avant  dite  guerre 
La  quele  encontre  sei  enprist, 
356  Ja  seit  grant  ennui  lu  feist, 

One  por  QO  ne  fut  plus  oisdif, 
Ainceis  ert  tant  plus  ententif 
Nut  e  jor  d'orer  e  de  lire, 
360  Ou  d'estudier,  ou  d'escrire. 

Si  q'onqes  ne  cessa  nule  hore. 
Qei  feroie  plus  de  demore 
De  reconter  com  pues  vesqit, 
364  Com  nostre  Sire  lu  rendit 

Por  son  servise  sa  merite  ?  — 
Gregoire  en  cele  iglise  ainz  dite 
Lone  tens  tot  aresie  maneit 
368  Ou  de  cru  letim  lu  pesseit 

La  seinte  Silvia  sa  mere, 
Quant  un  jor  en  guise  d'un  frere 
Lui  trovot  un  angle  escrivant 
372  Qui  bien  resemblot  i)ar  semblant 

Tins  oem  qui  fust  de  mer  jete, 
De  peril  de  mort  escbape, 
La  nef  de  qui  fust  perillee, 
376  Par  tempeste  de  mer  brisee. 

Cist  itel  lu  appareisseit 
La  ou  par  costume  escriveit. 
Si  lu  requist  por  De  amor 
380  Q'elist  merci  de  sa  dolor, 

Pitousement,  od  voiz  plorable. 
Gregoire  qi  fut  merciable, 
Douz,  francs,  pitous  e  deboneire 
384  Tantost  sanz  demorer,  en  eire. 

Sis  deners  trest  de  s'aumosnere, 
Si  lu  donot  od  f ranche  cbiere ; 
E  cil  ilors  graces  rendant 
388  Partit  de  lui  liez  e  joant. 

Mais  ne  demora  fors  briefment, 


152         MANUAL  OF   OLD  FREXCII  DIALECTS 

Quant  eis  le  vos  tot  freschement 
Un  autre  jor  a  lui  venir. 

392  Si  se  perneit  a  dementir 

E  se  pleiust  qe  poi  ot  reQu 
Encontre  iqo  q'ot  molt  perdu ; 
E  Gregoire  erraument  regiers 

396  Lu  donot  sis  de  ses  deniers 

Doucement  e  de  quer  verai, 
E  li  perillie  sanz  delai 
Merciz  rendant  s'en  vait  joious. 

400         ,  Mais  el  tierz  jor  este  le  vous 

Tot  de  novel  par  devant  lui 
Pleingnant  e  plorant  a  ennui, 
Com  s'il  etist  tot  oblie 

404  Quanq'il  lu  ot  ainces  done, 

E  dist :  "  Por  amor  De,  beau  sire, 
"  Qui  en  son  regne  lu  vos  mire 
"  E  por  la  salu  de  vostre  emme 

408  "  Qe  Deu  la  defende  de  blemme 

"E  de  damage  e  de  peccliie, 
"  Aies  merei  del  perillie, 
**  De  ma  mesaise,  e  de  ma  perte 

412  "  Qui  tant  par  est  dure  e  aperte 

"Aiez,  por  siente  charite, 
"  Compassion  e  piete ; 
"  Si  me  fai  consolation 

416  "  De  quel  qe  seit  de  vostre  don, 

**  Dom  mis  doels  seit  asouagiez." 
Gregoire  atant  s'est  esbrusciez, 
Com  oem  de  charite  espris, 

420  Douz,  merciable  e  francs  e  pis, 

E  dist  a  son  chamberleuc  lors : 
"  Va  tost  e  sis  deners  onqors 
"  Lui  aporte,  si  tu  les  as. 

424  — Sire,"  fist  s'il,  "jo  nes  ai  pas, 

"  Si  Deu  me  saut,  n'or  ne  argent 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  153 

"Taut  dom  negun  confortement 

"  Lii  pelisse  a  Oste  liore  faire." 
428  Lors  fut  Gregoire  en  grant  arvaire 

Desquant  soi  vit  en  tel  destreit, 

Car  d'une  part  pitous  ereit 

E  d'autre  triste  e  angoissous 
432  Del  povre  qui  vit  soufreitous, 

E  de  sa  destresce  demeine. 

Neporquant  a  la  fin  aceine 

Regiers  son  chamberlenc  a  soi, 
436  Si  lu  dist :  "  Va  tost,  par  ta  foi, 

"  Si  cerche  par  trestot  laienz 

"  Huges,  almaires,  vestimenz, 

"  Si  riens  par  aventure  i  truisses 
440  "  Dom  lu  reconf orter  pelisses, 

"Q'il  ne  s'en  aut  triste  e  plorant."  ' 

Atant  respondit  li  servant : 

^'  Sire,  sachez  qe  des  piece  a 
444  "  Enquis  ai  trestot  quanq'i  a, 

"  Mais  veirement  dener  ne  maille 

"  N'i  troefs  ne  nule  rien  qui  vaille 

^'  N'en  robe,  n'en  veisselement, 
448  "  Estre  I'escuele  d' argent 

"  La  quele  a  vostre  maladie 

"  De  legun  sovent  replenie 

"  Vos  traniet  vostre  bone  mere. 
452  —  Done,"  dist  Gregoire,  od  bele  here, 

"  Va  donqes  tost,  e  si  I'aporte 

"Al  povre  qui  se  desconforte, 

"  Q'is  eit,  seveaus,  de  tant  solaz." 
456  ^o  q'il  ot  dit  fut  fait  viaz 

Einsi  com  il  I'ot  commande, 

E  cil  qui  ert  povre  quide 

La  requt,  s'accuillit  sa  voie 
460  Graces  rendant  od  molt  grant  joie, 

Mais  ]0  quit  quant  repeirira 


154         IVLINUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

De  chef,  rens  maes  ne  li  qiierra, 
Ainceis  lu  voudra,  sanz  mentir, 

464  Quanq'ainz  lu  a  donne  merir. 

A  quel  vos  tendroie  lone  tens  ? 
Mais  tant  par  eroit  en  toz  sens 
Gregoire  espirez  de  vertuz, 

468  De  miracles  seinz  reqenuz 

Enpres  la  visitation 
De  I'angle  dom  faz  mention, 
Qe  tut  cil  qui  od  lui  vivoient 

472        ,  Tot  autritant  lu  redoutoient 

Com  s'il  fust  per  a  seint  Andre 
Qui  de  s'iglise  ert  avoue. 


CHAEDEI 1 

La  Vie  des  Set  Dormans 

La  vertu  deu  ki  tuz  jurs  dure 

E  tuz  jurs  est  certeine  e  pure 

Ne  deit  pas  trop  estre  celee. 

Car  quant  il  fet  chaut  u  gelee, 
5  Nues  voler,  escleir  u  vent, 

De  ceo  n'unt  merveille  la  gent, 

Ne  de  la  terre  ne  de  la  mer, 

Pur  ceo  k'il  sunt  acustumer 

De  veer  cele  variance, 
10  Cum  deu  le  fet  par  sa  pussance  j 

E  ne  puroec  mut  esbaifs 

I  serrium,  se  ententifs 

Pussum  estre  del  penser. 

Variants  (given  by  Koch,  p.  189) 
1,  LO  ke  ;  L  tutjurz,  0  tutjurs  ;  ibid.  2.  —5,  0  Nuwes.  —6,  Z  De 
ceo  num  m'ille,  etc.,  0  De  ceo  um  merveyle.  — 7,  0  tere.  —  8,  0,  keil. 

i  Edition  Koch,  pp.  76  and  164. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS 


155 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


E  deu  nus  vousist  itant  tenser. 
Ne  purrum  pas  a  chef  venir, 
Se  deu  nel  vousist  nieintenir/ 
Ki  purreit  or  sanz  encumbrer 
Les  esteiles  del  eel  numbrer, 
Ne  la  hautesce  del  firmament 
Ki  tant  est  cler  e  tant  resplent, 
E  la  laur  de  tut  le  munde 
E  de  la  mer  ki  est  parfunde  :  ^ 
Mut  purreit  ben  esmerviller 
Ki  weres  en  vousist  parler. 
Mes  nus  en  pen  sum  mut  petit, 
Car  aillurs  avum  le  nostre  alit 
Enracine  par  grant  folie 
En  mauveste  e  en  tricherie. 
Car  d'autre  penser  n'avum  cure 
Eors  de  cele  malaventure 
K'en  cest  secle  veum  user. 
Trop  i  delitum,  seinnurs,  muser, 
Si  n'avrum  fors  hunte  e  dulur 
Pur  teu  penser  a  chef  de  tur. 
Cil  ki  de  quoer  vout  deus  amer 
E  retrere  vout  del  amer 
De  cest  munt  ki  tant  travaille, 
Mut  se  delitera  sanz  faille 
Des  uvrainnes  Jhesu  Crist 
K'uncore  fet  e  tuz  jurs  list. 
Leal  serra  ki  par  teu  penser 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSifY 

OF 


Variants 

14,  L  E  ren  (or  veu?)  n'uousist,  etc.  — 17,  LO  ore.  —22,  LO  ke.— 
23,  L  p?irreit  len.— 26,  Zaffit.  —  28,  0  mauveiste.— 30,  LO  For. — 
31,  LO  ke  en.  — 33,  LO  for.  —34,  0  tel  au  chef.  —  35,  0  ke  deu.  — 
37,  0  ke.  —  39,  0  overaynes.  —  40,  0  ke  ;  LO  unkore  ;  L  tutiurz, 
0  tuzjurs.  — 41,  LO  lei. 

1  Mussafia  {Zt.  Ill,  604)  suggests  a  period  at  end  of  this  line. 

2  Mussafia  suggests  an  interrogation  point  here. 


156    MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Lerra  sa  grant  folie  ester. 

Pur  teus  curages  tenir 

E  le  ben  k'en  poet  avenir, 
46  Une  aventure  viis  cunterai, 

Dimt  ja  ren  ne  iiientirai, 

D'un  miracle  ke  fist  Jhesu, 

Ki  pitus  est  e  tuz  jurs  fu. 

Ki  deus  eime  de  bon  curage 
60  Or  i  tende,  si  fra  ke  sage. 

Ne  voil  pas  en  fables  d'Ovide, 

Seinnurs,  mettre  mun  estuide, 

Ne  ja,  sacliez,  ne  parlerum 

Ne  de  Tristram  ne  de  Galerun ; 
55  Ne  de  Eenart  ne  de  Hersente 

Ne  voil  pas  mettre  m'entente, 

Mes  voil  de  deu  e  sa  vertu, 

Ki  est  pussant  e  tuz  jurs  fu, 

E  de  ses  seinz,  les  set  Dormanz, 
60  Ki  tant  furent  resplendisanz 

Devant  la  face  Jhesu  Crist. 

Car  si  cum  il  est  escrit 

Vus  en  dirrai  la  verite 

De  cbef  en  chef  cum  ad  este. 

Petit  Plet 

Tuz  ne  sunt  pas  amis  verais 
1630  Ki  vus  losengent,  de  deus  en  treis. 

Ki  beit  e  mangue  a  ta  table 

Variants 

44,    0  ke  peot.— 46,  L  ni.  — 47,    L   Dun. —48,    LO  tutjurs.— 

49,  LO  aime.  —  50,   0  Ore  i  antende  ;  Zfrad.  —  51,  L  touid' ;  0  de 

Ovyde.  —  52,    0  seynurs.  —  53,    LO  Renard.  — 50,   0  maentente.— 

58,    L  tutiurz,    0   tuziurs.  — 59,    O    des    ses,    etc.,    les    VII,    D.— 

60,  LO  ke. 

1629,   OV  verray(i)s.  — 1630,   OV  ke ;   LO  dous  ;  O  u  treys.— 

1631,  0  Ke  ;  0  maniuwe. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  157 

Ne  serra  ami  cuvenable, 

Se  essae  nel  as  avant — 

Mar  le  crerras  ne  tant  ne  quant ! 
1635  Car  ceus  ki  plus  vus  promettereint 

A  chef  de  tur  vus  decevreiiit. 

Teus  juent  e  bel  vus  rient, 

Au  paraler  de  vus  mesdient. 

Cil  vus  eiment  e  pres  e  loin, 
1640  Mes  il  vus  faudrunt  au  grant  busoin 

Ceo  est  Pamiste  de  main  en  main : 

Tant  as  —  tant  vans,  e  tant  vus  eim. 

De  teus  en  avrez  vus  asez, 

Deske  les  eez  ben  espruvez. 

GUILLAUME   DE   BERNEVILLE 
La  Vie  de  Saint  Gile^ 

Gires  est  en  la  veie  mis, 

Gerpist  sa  terre  e  ses  amis ; 

II  nen  ad  n'or  n'argent  od  sai, 

Cheval  ne  mul  ne  palefrei; 
646  II  n'en  porte  ne  veir  ne  gris, 

Meis  povres  dras  de  petit  pris ; 

Meis  Deus  ki  est  riches  d'aveir 

Lui  truverat  sun  estuveir. 

II  ad  tute  la  nuit  erre ; 
650  N'est  merveille  s'il  est  lass^: 

N'ert  pas  a  us  d'aler  a  p^ ; 

1633,  LOV  Si  assae;  OV  avawnt.  — 1635,   0  ki  plus  promettrey- 
ent,  V  ke  uns  pmett'unt.  — 1636,   V  cliif ;  L  deccuerint,   O  -eyent, 

V  decevemnt.  —  1637,  0  Teus  iuwent,  V  Teus  venint.  —  1638,  L  Al, 

V  A  paraler.  — 1639,  L  aiinent.  — 1640,  V  bosoign,  LOV  al. — 
1641,  C'est  for  Ms.  ceo  est;  L  le  ;  LV  mein  en  mein.  — 1624,  LO 
ai(y)m — 1644,   0  Deske  vus  eez,  V  Deskes. 

Manuscript  Readings 
641,  mise.  — 649,  tut. —650,  si  est. 
1  Edition,  Paris  et  Bos,  pp.  20,  38,  and  46. 


158         MANUAL  OF  OLD   FRENCH  DLILECTS 

Ne  pur  kant  mult  s'est  efforce, 
Kar  la  gent  dute  de  sa  terre 
Ke  nel  sivent  e  facent  guerre. 

655  E  il  si  funt,  plusurs  parties 

Vunt  lur  curlius  e  lur  espies, 
Querent  a  munt,  querent  a  val, 
Ambure  a  pe  e  a  cheval ; 
Mei  est  avis  k'en  vein  le  funt: 

660  Ja  de  lur  olz  meis  nel  verrunt. 


Entre  le  Eodne  e  Munpellers 
1230  Ert  le  pais  large  e  pleners 

De  granz  deserz  e  de  boscages; 
Assez  i  out  bestes  sauvages, 
Urs  6  liuns  e  cers  e  deims, 
Senglers,  lehes  e  forz  farrins, 
1235  Olifans  e  bestes  cornues, 

Vivres  e  tygres  e  tortues, 
Sagittaires  e  locerveres 
E  serpenz  de  mutes  maneres. 
Gires  n'en  prent  nule  pour, 
1240  Einz  se  fie  en  sun  bon  seignur. 

El  bois  entre  ki  mut  fud  grant 
E  veit  le  Eodne  costeant : 
Or  en  penst  Deus  par  sa  merci, 
Car  pur  s'amur  ad  tut  guerpi ; 
1245  Se  il  n'en  prent  de  lui  conrei, 

Ne  mangera,  car  il  n'at  quel : 
Ne  porte  od  sei  ne  pain  ne  vin 
Dunt  il  se  digne  a  eel  matin, 
Ne  tant  que  vaille  un  hanetun 
1250  Entre  vitaille  e  guarisun. 


Manuscript  Readings 
654,  Ki.  —  656,  Unt.  — 1230,  &.  — 1231,  grant.  —  123G,  Urs  e  t. 
1243,  peust.  — 1247,  nine,— 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  159 

Seigneur,  oez  \\n  bel  miracle : 

Hoc  u  ert  en  s'abitacle 
1505  E  en  sa  loge  u  il  uroiit 

E  nostre  seignur  depreiout, 

Si  vit  une  bisse  sauvage 

Tut  dreit  errante  a  I'hermitage. 

La  bisse  fud  durement  bele 
1510  E  vint  tut  dreit  a  la  venele 

Par  la  sente  k'ele  trovad : 

Entre  les  branches  se  musQat, 

Ne  dutet  pas,  meis  dreit  enz  veit. 

Gros  out  le  piz  e  plein  de  leit : 
1515  As  pez  Gire  se  veit  gesir, 

Presente  sei  de  lui  servir. 

Gires  ad  la  bisse  veue 

Ki  a  ses  pez  est  estendue : 

Mult  se  feit  lez,  kar  ben  suschad 
1520  Ke  Dampne  deus  lui  enveiad. 

Tant  cum  iloc  el  desert  fud, 

Del  leit  de  la  bisse  ad  vescud. 

Or  escutez  cum  el  le  sert : 

Le  jor  veit  peistre  enz  el  desert; 
1525  Quant  vent  a  I'ure  de  disgner, 

Ne  I'estot  pas  pur  lui  aler : 

Ele  set  ben  le  terme  e  Pure, 

Si  sacliez  bien  plus  ne  demure 

K'el  n'en  venge  dreit  a  la  fosse ; 
1530  Ele  fud  bele  e  grasse  e  grosse : 

N'i  out  si  bele  en  la  contree, 

Ne  ne  serad  ja  meis  trovee. 

Gires  li  feit  a  une  part 

Manuscript  Readings 

1505,  E  wanting.  — 1507,  E  si.  —1509,  f.  mut  d.  — 1518,  estendu. 
—  1519,  lez  wanting.  —  1521,  iloc  wanting.  —  1523,  ele.  — 1529,  Kele. 
— 1530,  gras,  —  1531,  Nout,  centre.  — 1533,  le  f. 


160         MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Une  logette  en  sun  essart 
1535  U  gist  la  nuit  pur  la  fraidure  ; 

L'endemain  veit  a  sa  pasture. 
De  tel  conrei  cum  jo  vus  di 
S'est  li  sers  Deu  vescu  meint  di : 
Quant  il  ad  pris  tant  cum  li  haite, 
1540  Nen  ad  messaise  ne  suffreite. 


VIE  DE   SAINT  THOMAS  1 

FEUILLET    II 

Li  apostoilles  ad  grant  angoisse, 
Suz  ciel  ne  siet  ke  faire  puisse. 
E  li  messager  [an]  cuntraire, 

4  Ore  funt  un,  ore  funt  el  traire.^ 

Mut  avroit  en  quor  pesance^ 
S'il  curuQast  le  roi  de  France 
E  des  Franceis  la  commune. 

8  Ceste  est  de  dous  parties  la  une, 

Mes  ceste  requiert  dreiture, 
Lei  e  leaute  e  mesure. 
D'autre  part  li  rois  Henris, 

12  De  terre,  de  aveir  poestifs, 

Ove  ses  evesques  e  ses  clers 
Est  tut  encuntre  e  en  travers. 
Si  li  rois  ne  se  entremette 

16  Lowis,  ne  siet  quant  pes  i  mette, 

Kar  mult  est  de  descreciun, 
De  mesure  e  de  grant  resun. 

Manuscript  Readings 
1638,  uesqui. 

1  Edition  P.  Meyer,  p.  11. 

2  "  Corr.  07'  dans  I'un  des  deux  cas." 
8  "  eii  ou  en  ?" 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  161 


BOEVE  DE  HAUMTONEi 


XL  VI 


Li  emfes  vint  devaunt  le  emperur  a  vis  fer, 
290        harcliement  commenqa  a  parler : 

"  Entendez  vers  moi,  beau  duz  sire  cher, 
ky  Yus  dona  conge  cele  dame  acoler  ? 
Ele  est  ma  mere,  ne  yus  enq?(er  celer, 
e  ka?mt  a  moi  ne  volez  conge  demaunder, 
295        jeo  v?<s  frai  sa  am?«-  mou  cher  acliater; 
rendez  moi  ma  tere,  jeo  yus  voil  loer. 


XLVII 


Beau  sire  emperur,"  dist  Boefs  li  sene, 
"  vus  acolez  ma  mere  estre  mon  conge ; 
mun  pere,  ke  taunt  amai,  yus  avez  tue. 
300        Pur  ceo,  sire,  yus  pri  ke  moi  ma  tere  rendez, 

que  YUS  fauseme^it  tenez  tut  saujiz  ma  volu?itez." 
Lui  emperur  respondi :  ''  Fol,  kar  yus  teisez ! " 


XLVIII 


Boefs  tost  oist  ceo  ke  Tempe^-ur  ad  dist, 
taunt  avoit  grant  ire  que  tut  le  sane  li  fremist ; 
305        hauce  la  massue,  en  le  chef  le  ferist, 
treis  cops  li  dona  e  treis  plaies  li  fist 
e  jure  par  dampnedeu  e  le  seint  espirist, 
si  il  ne  li  rent  sa  tere,  a  mal  hure  le  vit. 


IL 


Ly  emperur  chai  sur  la  table  paum^. 
310        La  dame  se  escrie  :  "  Ceo  tretur  me  pernez  !  " 
Les  uns  de  chevalers  ure;it  grant  pitez 
de  Boefs,  le  enfaunt,  si  sont  il  levez, 
ausi  com  pitr  li  prendre  s'i  sunt  pressez, 
e  li  emfes  est  enter  eus  queinteme?it  eschapez. 

1  Edition  Stimming,  pp.  13  and  72. 


162         MANUAL  OF  OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 


315        A  I'hostel  son  mestre  s'en  vint  il  coraunt. 

Sabot  li  vist  si  le  va  d.eniaimdau?it : 

"  Doimt  venez  yus,  beau  fiz,  si  fo^teme?^t  hastauwt  ?  " 

"De  tiier  mun  pa^-astre,"  ceo  dist  li  enfaiint; 

"treis  plaies  li  donai,  kar  il  me  apella  truaunt, 
320        jammes  ne  garira  par  le  men  ascient." 


A  le  paleis  I'eveske  sunt  il  pus  alez. 
L'eveske  a  dune  fu  vault  lez, 
a  muste?'  sunt  ale  de  Sent  Trinitez. 
1955       Josian  la  bele  est  pus  baptisez. 

A  dune  fu  I'Escopart  si  longe  e  si  lee, 

CXLI 

Ke  dedens  le  fons  ne  put  entrer. 
Un  grant  couve  f unt  aparailer 
tut  plein  de  ewe  pur  li  baptiser ; 
I960       vint  homes  i  furent  pur  li  sus  lever, 
mes  entre  els  ne  li  point  remuer. 

CXLII 

"  Seyniirs,"  dist  I'Escopart,  ^'  pur  nent  traveilez. 
Lessez  moi  entrer ;  yus  me  en  sakerez.'^ 
Diunt  les  altres  :  "  yus  dite  ve?'itez." 
19G5       L'Escopa?*t  salt  dedens  joyns  pez, 
si  ke  a  le  funde  est  avalez, 
si  fu  en  la  funte  Guy  nomez ; 
e  I'ewe  fu  freyde  si  li  ad  refreydez. 

CXLIII 

L'Escopa^-t  comence  a  crier 
1970        e  I'eveske  forement  a  ledenger : 

"  Ke  est  ceo  ?  "  fet  il,  "  malveis  velen  berger, 
mey  volez  yus  en  cest  ewe  neyer  ? 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  163 

Trop  su  jeo  crestien,  lessez  moi  aler.'^ 
Saili  est  lia  p7'(?sent  liors,  ne  voit  demorer. 
1975       Ke  dune  le  veit  nu  les  granz  sauz  aler, 
il  li  sereyt  a  vis,  ne  viis  qiier  celer, 
ke  il  fust  im  deble  ke  vousist  manger, 

LE   CHEVALIER,  LA   DAME   ET   LE   CLERC^ 

Ore  est  li  seignur  mal  arive 
548  Kar  batuz  est  de  sa  maisnce ; 

Li  un  fiert  al  chef  li  autre  al  cool  j 

Ore  se  tint  il  bien  pur  fol. 

Blescie  se  sent,  en  haut  escrie : 
552  "  Merci  par  Deu,  ma  duce  amie, 

"  Si  me  ociez  vus  freiet  mal.^ 

"  Jeo  sui  vostre  sengnur  leal ; 

"  Par  mal  conseil  ai  meserret." 
556  La  dame  se  feint  mult  corucee, 

Kespondi  com  par  (mult)  grant  irrur, 

Ke  ceo  ne  fud  pas  sun  seignur, 

Mes  fud  le  clerjastre  de  la  vile 
560  Ke  deceivre  la  quidout  par  gile : 

"  Mei  quidout  honir  e  mon  baron." 

II  osta  dune  sun  cliaperun 

E  la  dame  le  reconulit. 
564  Tantost  a  ses  pez  coruht : 

"Sire,"  dist  ele,  "pur  I)eu,  merci! 

"  Ki  vus  quidout  ore  aver  ici  ? 

"Forfete  me  sui  durement. 
568  —  Par  foi,"  dist  il,  "  nun  estes  nient, 

"  Mais  durement  grant  gre  vus  sai ; 

"A  tuz  jors  (le)  meuz  vus  amerai, 

"  Yous  avez  feit  com  bone  dame; 
572  "  E  cele  ke  vus  miht  en  blame 

"  De  moi  ne  ert  james  amie." 

1  Edition  P.  Meyer,  Bom.  I,  86.  2  u  Corr.  ferez."" 


164         MANUAL  OF   OLD  FRENCH  DIALECTS 

Sa  soer  tantost  ad  enchacie, 
Ama  sa  femmej  la  tint  plus  chere 

576  Kant  servi  li  avoit  en  ten  manere ; 

E  sa  femme  apres  eel  jor 
Ama  e  cheri  son  seignur 
Azzez  plus  [k']  unke  nies  ne  fiht. 

580  De  sun  peche  penaunce  prist, 

Ama  Deu  sor  t  te  rien, 
Unc  puis  ne  mespriht  de  rien.^ 
Lung  tens  vesqui  en  vie  bone 

584        '         Del  pais  dame  e  matrone, 

E  kant  moruth  la  bone  dame 
A  Deu  rendi  sus  sa  alme.^ 

PilLEEINAGE   DE   CHARLEMAGNE ^ 

Sire  dist  carlem  uolez  en  mes  des  gas 
Ki  en  auez  coisit  oil  recumecerat 
E  dist  bug'  li  forz  ueez  ci  b'nard 

765  Filz  le  9te  aimer  ki  de  co  se  uatat 

Q;  ile  g'^nt  ewe  q  brut  a  eel  ual 
Q;  il  la  freit  eisir  tute  de  sun  canal 
Entrer  e  la  citet  c"re  de  tutes  parz 
Mai  mames  muter  e  mu  pP  halt  palais 

770  Q;  nen  p"rai  decendre  tresq;  il  cumadereit 

Ore  set  li  qns  bernard  lui  estut  cumcer 
E  dist  a  carlem  damne  deu  en  p'ez 
II  uent  curat  al  ewe  si  ad  les  quez  seignez 
Deus  i  fist  miracles  li  glorius  del  eel 

776  Q;  tute  la  g'^nt  ewe  fait  isir  de  sun  bied 

Aspandere  les  caps  q  tuz  le  uiret  ben 
Entrer  e  la  citez  7  emplir  les  celers 
La  get  lui  rei  hug'  7  m oilier  7  guaer 
En  la  plus  halte  t"  li  reis  sen  fuid  a  ped 

1  "  Corr.  Unkes:'  ^  "  Corr.  la  sue  a." 

8  Edition  (3)  Koscliwitz,  p.  44. 


TEXT  SELECTIONS  165 

780  Desur  un  pin  antif  cc  carl'  al  uis  fer 

II  7  li  duze  pers  li  barun  cheualer 
Prient  dapue  Deu  q^  d'  eauls  ait  pited 
Desur  un  pin  antif  est  carlemaines 
II  7  li  duze  per  le  getes  cupaines 

785  Oit  lu  rei  hug'  sus  e  la  t"  deplaindre 

Sun  tresor  li  durat  sil  cudurat  e  f^nce 
E  deuedrat  ses  homes  de  lui  tedrat  su  regne 
Q^nt  lentend  lepere  pitet  e  a  ml't  g'^nde 
Enuers  humilitet  se  deit  eom  be  efraindre 

790  E  p'et  a  ihii  q  cele  ewe  remaignet 

Deus  i  fist  g^nt  u'tut  p""  am"  Carlemaigne 
Leue  ist  de  la  citet  si  sen  vait  p  les  plaines 
Reetret  e  sun  canal  les  riues  en  stit  pleines 
Des  put  ben  li  reis  i^  de  la  tur  decedre 

795  E  uent  a  Carleni  desuz  lubre  de  une  ente 

A  feiz  dreiz  em^ere  io  sai  ke  d's  u'  aime 
Tis  ho  uoil  deuenir  d'  tei  tedrai  mti  regne 
Mun  tresor  te  durrai  si  frai  amener  e  fnce 
Volez  en  mes  des  gas  sire  dist  carlemaine 

800  E  dist  hug'  li  forz  ne  de  ceste  semaine 

Si  tuz  st'  aapli  ia  ne  ert  iur  k;  ne  me  plaigne. 

BOZON  1 

Le  corf  porta  un  furmage  en  sa  bouche,  a  ky  le  gopyl  en- 
countra ;  ci  dit :  "  Dieux !  Com  vous  estez  beal  oysel,  e  ben 
seriez^  a  preiser,  si  vous  chauntassez^  auxi  cler  cum  fist 
jadys  vostre  piere !  "  Le  corf  fust  joyous  del  loenge,  si  overi 
sa  bouche  pour  chaunter,  e  perdy  son  furmage.  "  Va  tu," 
dit  le  gopil,  "  asez  en  ai  de  ton  chaiit." 


Un  veox   homme   jadis   out  une  joene  femme.      E  pur 
graund  affiaunce  qe  out  en  lui,  touz  ces  bienz  a  lui  dona  en 

1  Edition  Smith  et  Meyer,  pp.  15,  44,  98,  and  113. 

2  A  serrettez.  ^  B  cbauntissiez. 


166         MANUAL  OF   OLD   FRENCH  DIALECTS 

morrant.  Si  la  pria  pur  Dieu  qe  ele  pensast  de  lui  eyder 
apres  sa  mort.  "  Volunters,"  fet  [ele],  "  si  voille  Dienx  !  " 
Morust  le  sire  e  la  femme  prent  un  garceon  qoyiit  vielours 
et  assemee,  taunt  que  un  jour  la  femme  envoy  a  un  presant 
de  payn  e  de  cerveyse  al  cliapelyn  pur  chanter  pur  la  alme 
sa  primer  baron.  L'autre  vynt;  si  lui  encontra  e  fist  le 
present  retorner.  ''Jeo  say,"  dit  il  a  sa  femme,  "meux 
chanter  qe  le  chapeleyn.  Emples  deus  hanapez,  si  irroms 
caroler.  Le  vaillard  fui  plus  gelous  de  autres  qe  de  sey,  et 
jeo,  qe  sui  estrange,  quai  frai  jeo  pur  lui  ?  "  ^  Fols  est  qe 
se  affie  en  autres  apres  sa  vie  e  lest  sa  alme  nuwe  pur  mettre 
en  estrange  muwe.     Ceo  est  a  dire  en  engleys : 

He  yat  hadd  inou  to  2  help  him  self  wital, 
Sithen  he  ne  wold,^  I  ne  wile  ne  I  ne  schal. 


Un  seint  home  qe  fust  appelle  Carpe  out  tournee  un 
mescreaiit  a  la  fei  de  seint  Esglise.  Et  tant  com  fust  hors 
du  pays,  celui  returne  a  mescreaunce  par  conseil  de  un 
mauveys  home.  Dont  seint  Carp  fust  tant  grevee  de  ceo  e  ^ 
a  mal  eese  q'il  imsi  a  Dieux  qe  il  preist  de  eux  vengeance. 
E  en  poy  de  houre  ^  lui  fust  a  vys  [en  avision  ^]  y'il  vy  enf ern 
overir  e  ceo  deuz  prestez  pur  entrer.  Et  tant  fust  corucee 
vers  lur  peclie  qu  il  desira^  qe  eux  fussent  entrez.  Lors 
appareust  Jesu  Crist  od  ses  ^  playes  totes  sanglantz,  e  dit  a 
Carp:  "Vers  moy  regardez  e  ma  peyne  avisez  e  de  qeor^ 
entendez  ma  ^°  dolour  qe  jeo  endurai^^pur  sauver  pechour. 
Vous  pernez  a  trop  legier  ceo  qe  me  costa  mout  cher.  Si 
autre  foiz  morir  puse,  com  fere  nel  puis  a  nul  feor,  ma 
volente  serreit  pur  home  morir,  tant  ay  a^^  lui  grand  amur." 
Le  seint  home,  apres  la  vewe,  se  repenty,  e  pria  Dieux  pur 
les  autres  merci. 

1  J.  qe  fra  pur  lui  qe  fray.  ^  ^  ^il. 

8  B  adds  for  sothe.  ■*  B  omits  grevee  de  ceo  e. 

^  B  adds  apr^s.  ^  B.  ''A  desirra. 

8  J5  le.  97?  omits  de  qeor.  10  ^  la. 

11  A  endurrai,  12  ^  y^rs, 


TEXT   SELECTIONS  167 

Qui  ad  trop  de  clievux  e  veot  estre  allegee  prenge  le  jus 
de  cardoii  e  moille  sa  test,  e  il  trovera  allegeaunce  a  sa 
volentee.  Auxiiit  vous  di:  qi  est  trop  charge  de  chateux 
au  des  biens  teinporaux  ou  de  deners,  quierge  I'amur  de 
felun  seignur  a  sa  ayuoy[n]taiice,  e  il  serra  descliargee. 
Pur  ceo  dit  le  sage  homme :  "  Ne  vous  aquoyntez  pas  al 
riche/'  qar  com  plus  lui  donez  plus  te  grevera. 


f<^^^^^ 


UNiVERSiTY    j) 

OF 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  IN  ROMANCE 
PHILOLOGY  AND  LITERATURE 


FREDERIC  MISTRAL,  Poet  and  Leader  in  Provence 
By  CHARLES  ALFRED  DOWNER 

Assistant  Professor  in  the  French  Language  and  Literature  in  the 
College  of  the  City  of  New  York 

Cloth  J2mo  $J^0  net 

"  Professor  Downer's  book  is  the  most  important  treatise  on  the  subject  that  has  yet  ap- 
peared in  English,  and  deserves  commendation,  not  only  for  the  story  of  the  life  of  Mis- 
tral and  its  detailed  examination  of  the  merits  and  defects  of  his  various  compositions,  but 
also  for  its  statements  of  the  chief  phonetical,  grammatical,  and  prosodical  peculiarities 
of  the  Provenijal  language." —  77ie  Indepetident. 


CORNEILLE  AND  THE  SPANISH  DRAMA 

By  J.   B.  SEQALL,   Ph.D.    (Columbia) 

Instructor  in  French  in  the  College  of  the  City  of  New   York 
Sometime  Fellow  in  Romance  Languages  in  Columbia  U?iiversity 

Cloth  J2mo  $J.50  net 

"This  is  a  brief  but  excellent  work  in  which  the  author,  after  showing  how  greatly  the 
literature  of  France  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  was  indebted  to  Spain, 
dwells  especially  on  the  overweening  power  of  the  Spanish  stage  over  the  French  drama 
during  the  age  of  Corneiile,  and  how  the  great  French  master  borrowed  plot  and  often 
thoughts  and  expressions  from  Spanish  playwrights." —  The  Arena. 


THE  INDEBTEDNESS  OF  CHAUCER'S  '^TROILUS 

AND    CRISEYDE^    TO    GUIDO    DELLE 

COLONNE'S  ^'HISTORIA  TROJANA'^ 

By  QEORQE  L.   HAMILTON,   A.n. 

Sotnetime  Fellow  in   Columbia   University 
Professor  of  Romafice  Languages  in  Trinity  College,  North  Carolina 

Cloth  J2mo  %\:25net 

One  of  the  most  interesting  and  disputed  questions  connected  with  the  literary  develop- 
ment of  the  Troy  Legend  is  that  of  the  sources  of  Chaucer's  Troilus  and  Criseyde.  Chau- 
cer's general  indebtedness, in  this  work,  to  Boccaccio's  Filostrato  is  well  known  and  has  been 
sufficiently  set  forth.  The  present  author,  on  the  other  hand,  following  out  a  new  line  of 
discovery,  makes  a  careful  and  penetrating  examination  of  the  relations  of  the  Troilus  and 
Criseyde  to  Guido  delle  Colonne's  translation,  under  the  title  of  Historia  Trojana,  of  Be- 
noit  de  Sante-More's  Roinan  de  Troie.  The  method  and  results  of  Mr.  Hamilton's  study, 
as  here  presented,  will  be  of  interest  alike  to  students  of  English  and  of  Romance  literature. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH   AVENUE,    NEW   YORK 


\ 


'»''7 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JAN  0  2  2004 


APR  0  2  2004 


JUL  3  1   2007 


Sk 


DD20   15M  4-02 


(I. 


■I ' 


efNER/IL  LIBRARY -U.C.  BERKELEY 


60007504=!^ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


':'!) 


